Oral
Answers to
Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Leaving the EU

Patrick Grady: What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU. It is good to see the Benches so busy for Scotland questions.

Alan Brown: What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.

Peter Grant: What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.

David Mundell: I share the pleasure of the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) at seeing so many Members present on the Opposition Benches below the gangway. I have regular meetings with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and colleagues and have discussed the benefits of the withdrawal agreement and political deceleration for Scotland and the whole UK.

Patrick Grady: Does Secretary of State accept that no form of Brexit is better for Scotland than our current deal, which is membership? On that basis, will he take the opportunity now to rule out a no-deal, cliff-edge Brexit by extending article 50?

David Mundell: There is one sure and clear way to avoid a no-deal Brexit, and that is to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal; but on every occasion that SNP Members have had an opportunity to do so, they have declined. Indeed, they have sought to bring a no-deal Brexit closer to reality.

Alan Brown: Instead of these weasel words and standard answer, will the Secretary of State answer the question? The Government agree that no deal would be a disaster. Does he agree with extending article 50 to rule out a no-deal scenario?

David Mundell: I agree that we should leave the EU with a deal. The SNP position is to contrive to bring about a no-deal Brexit, and the chaos and disruption that they know that would bring to Scotland.

Peter Grant: It is just as well that the three-strikes-and-you’re-out rule does not apply here, or the Secretary of State would be one dodged question away from an early bath. On other occasions, the Secretary of State has been very keen to know what plan B was, so what has he told the Prime Minister his plan B is when—not if, but when—the Prime Minister’s rotten deal is rejected again? Is his plan B no deal or is it to extend article 50, and why is he so coy about telling us what it is?

David Mundell: First, I absolutely refute the hon. Gentleman’s description of the Prime Minister’s deal. The Prime Minister’s deal is a good deal. This House, by a majority, has set out changes it wants to that deal, and the Prime Minister is seeking that deal. But if SNP Members really do not want no deal, they should be backing a deal.

Paul Masterton: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, having spent months propping herself in front of every TV camera going, demanding a seat at the table, the First Minister of Scotland was extended an invitation to a series of key meetings by the Prime Minister, which she could not even be bothered to attend?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend is correct. For whatever reason, the First Minister has chosen not to attend the Cabinet Sub-Committee chaired by the Prime Minister on EU exit preparedness. What she has been prepared to do, however, is to go on television and say that she would not accept any deal; no matter what that deal contained, she would not accept a deal. To me, that is a most powerful advocate for a no-deal Brexit.

Colin Clark: Her Majesty’s Government’s Agriculture Bill will give essential legal clarity for farm payments after 2020 and safeguard the UK frameworks as we leave the EU. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is in marked contrast to the SNP Scottish Government who, even at this late stage, have refused to be part of the Bill, leaving Scottish farmers in the dark and at risk?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend has become a powerful advocate for Scottish agriculture in this Parliament. He is correct. We have offered the Scottish Government the opportunity to join us in taking forward the UK Agriculture Bill and providing certainty for Scottish farmers. Instead, they prepare to play politics with Scottish farming and leave farmers with great uncertainty.

David Duguid: In line with the Prime Minister’s ongoing commitment to supporting the growth of the fisheries sector outside the common fisheries policy, may I ask my right hon. Friend what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury about future financial support for the sector, and how best to progress with that and invest in the industry in Scotland?

David Mundell: As my hon. Friend knows, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have made very clear their support for the industry. Indeed, this afternoon I am meeting the Secretary of State, and that will be one issue on our agenda.

Ian Murray: We have seen over the past few weeks the large number of businesses that have been warning about Brexit and the Government’s strategy on Brexit. I keep being told by the leave campaign, “Don’t worry; businesses will adapt.” Well, they are adapting. They are adapting by moving their holding companies and their brass plates to other European Union countries. What will the Secretary of State do in the Cabinet to try to sort this mess out before it is too late? While his party and the SNP fight over flags, some of us are going to have to fight for jobs in our constituencies.

David Mundell: I did anticipate that I would have a question from the hon. Gentleman, but I was not sure whether he would ask it from the Labour Benches. What he needs to do, if he is concerned about avoiding a no-deal Brexit and the disruption and chaos that that would bring to Scottish businesses, is back the Prime Minister’s deal.

Tommy Sheppard: Coming back to Brexit, the Secretary of State seems to be completely incapable of answering a simple question: given the choice between no deal and extending article 50 to avoid that scenario, would he choose the latter option? Leaving that to one side, the papers report that he and three colleagues went to see the Prime Minister on Monday this week to discuss this very matter. Did he request that the Prime Minister take no deal off the table, and what was her response?

David Mundell: I am very clear about the implications of no deal for Scotland and the United Kingdom, which is why I want the Prime Minister to achieve a deal. That is why any Member of the House who does not want a no-deal outcome should support a deal.

Tommy Sheppard: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be incapable of answering a simple question. If he did indeed tell the Prime Minister to take no deal off the table, let me commend him, because for once—a rare occasion—he is in tune with public opinion in Scotland. He has threatened in the past to resign over matters of detail. When it comes to a matter of principle—having a deal or not—is he prepared to stay in the Cabinet and implement a no-deal scenario?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the key question. It is about having a deal or not. When that question has been asked, the SNP has always been in the not column, contriving to bring about a no-deal Brexit for Scotland. I am in the deal column. I voted for the deal in the meaningful vote, and I will do so again

Stephen Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that Members in all parts of the House, in the words of the head of Make UK, set aside
“selfish political ideology ahead of the national interest and people’s livelihoods”,
and voted for an EU withdrawal agreement to prevent the catastrophic event of leaving the EU without a deal?

David Mundell: Yes.

Lesley Laird: On the 12 October 2016, when questioned about the sweetheart deal that the UK Government struck with Nissan, the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and told the House that whatever support is put in place for businesses in the south of England
“will apply to businesses in Scotland.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 287.]
In the light of the news that Nissan was offered a financial package worth up to £80 million to ensure that it would not be adversely affected by Brexit, can he detail the financial support that he has made available to Scottish businesses to ensure that, like Nissan, they are not adversely affected by Brexit?

David Mundell: I am pleased to see the hon. Lady on the Labour Benches, as it has been reported that she would be willing to give up her seat to the SNP so that there could be a Labour minority Government propped up by the SNP. I stand by what I said previously: we stand ready to support businesses in Scotland. A huge amount of Government support has gone into supporting businesses in Scotland since the Brexit vote, and that will continue to be the case.

John Bercow: May I gently say to Members on both sides of the House that the style is altogether too languid? A lot of people want to get in: short questions, short answers, and let us move on. I call Lesley Laird.

Lesley Laird: Let me reassure the Secretary of State that I am going nowhere—I am Labour through and through. [Interruption.] He should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers.
Recently, Nissan, Honda, Jaguar Land Rover, Airbus, Sony, Panasonic, the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and many others have said that the Government’s incompetence over Brexit already means that jobs are being lost. Everyone here knows that the Prime Minister’s deal is dead, so is the Secretary of State going to let this circus continue or is he going to pull his head out of the sand and take no deal off the table, because that is what business wants, it is what Parliament wants, and it is what the country wants.

David Mundell: What the country wants is to have this sorted. They want to leave the EU with a deal, and the hon. Lady and her colleagues should support the Prime Minister in her endeavour.

Immigration Bill

Drew Hendry: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of provisions in the immigration Bill on Scotland.

Stuart McDonald: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of provisions in the immigration Bill on Scotland.

David Mundell: The Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill will help us deliver the new single, skills-based immigration system we want, one that maximises the benefits of immigration and demonstrates that Scotland and the UK are open for business.

Drew Hendry: I have heard the Secretary of State’s answer, but what faith can the people of Scotland have in the new immigration Bill or his Government when even after the issue was raised with the Prime Minister, with a promised intervention from the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary’s office told me yesterday that it has lost the file on Denis Omondi, the serving British soldier in 3 Scots whose young daughter has been denied a visa? Will the Scottish Secretary now get personally involved in this travesty?

David Mundell: I am disappointed to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, and yes of course I will.

Stuart McDonald: Last week, the National Farmers Union Scotland told the Bill Committee that free movement works and should continue, that the Government’s seasonal workers pilot was not nearly enough and that post-Brexit immigration proposals do not make sense and are “very obstructive”. Given that the UK-wide system is not working for Scotland’s farmers, will the Secretary of State argue for different immigration rules to apply in Scotland?

David Mundell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman references the seasonal workers scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) did so much to champion, but he is very selective in the evidence he cites. The clear view of businesses giving evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is that they do not want a separate Scottish immigration system.

Douglas Ross: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the CBI has said that a UK-wide immigration policy is the correct route, including for businesses in Moray and across Scotland?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend is right: that is the position of the CBI and of business organisations in Scotland, because they want workers to be able to move around the United Kingdom. There is no justification for a separate Scottish immigration system.

John Bercow: I call Luke Graham.

Luke Graham: indicated dissent.

John Bercow: A bout of shyness has afflicted the hon. Gentleman.

Derek Thomas: In both Scotland and Cornwall, many low-paid but skilled jobs are provided by immigrants to the UK. What assurance can the Secretary of State give that that will continue after Brexit?

John Bercow: The question is purely about Scotland.

David Mundell: In relation to Scotland, the immigration White Paper is a one-year consultation and businesses such as those referenced by my hon. Friend should take part in it and make the very point he has made.

Pete Wishart: It certainly feels different up here on these Benches today, that’s for sure. What does the Secretary of State have to say to the young people of Scotland—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is something wrong with the microphone. It is very unusual. I have never been unable previously to hear the hon. Gentleman, but what I would say is blurt it out with vim, man!

Pete Wishart: I am, Mr Speaker. What does the Secretary of State have to say to the young people of Scotland who, because of his Tory Brexit, will be denied the rights and opportunities to live, work and love across the continent of Europe?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman gives a solid reason why he and his colleagues should support the Prime Minister’s deal, which sets out those very issues. Instead, he would far rather have no deal and set about the chaos and disruption that he believes would further the cause of independence.

Kevin Foster: I must say that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) no longer sits on the Conservative Benches, she remains my hon. Friend.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the immigration Bill must not include provision for Scotland to join the Schengen area? That would undermine the common travel area and potentially result in a border with England.

David Mundell: There are those in this House who would, of course, like Scotland to have a border with England, but that is not true of this Government, who will never do anything that would bring that about.

Christine Jardine: Does the Secretary of State for Scotland agree with me that Scotland needs more immigrants and needs more workers? Will he therefore support lifting the ban on asylum seekers working when they come to this country?

David Mundell: Asylum seekers are a clear category and are dealt with under some very specific rules, but I do agree with the hon. Lady’s general proposition. That is why I encourage her and others to engage with the consultation set out in the immigration White Paper.

Paul Sweeney: The immigration Bill and the immigration White Paper go hand in hand. The Bill ends freedom of movement and the White Paper sets out the proposed immigration criteria once free movement ends. But the Secretary of State surely should be championing the pressing demographic and skills needs of Scotland at the Cabinet table. My first job in the shipyards, after graduating, paid £24,000. Many of my colleagues from across the EU and further afield earn similar amounts, and they have brought great expertise to our industry. Indeed, given that the average salary in Scotland is about £23,000 and the average care worker in Scotland is paid £18,000,  what is he going to do to ensure that this ridiculous, arbitrary salary cap is consigned to the bin, where it belongs?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman makes valid points, and I am sure they will all form part of the one-year consultation that is ongoing. I certainly will be advocating those sorts of points in that consultation.

Borderlands Growth Deal

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: What progress the Government have made on the borderlands growth deal.

Mel Stride: Growth deals lie right at the heart of the UK Government’s support for Scotland, which is why we have committed £1.3 billion to support the existing seven city and region growth deals. We remain committed to the borderlands growth deal.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The borderlands deal is a wonderful opportunity to help economic growth across what we in the borders consider a completely invisible line and not a border at all for practical purposes and day-to-day living. Will the Minister assure me—it is lovely to have a Treasury Minister answering the question—that we will get full support from the Treasury to ensure that we have a really strong, well-built growth deal?

Mel Stride: As a Treasury Minister, I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that the Treasury remains firmly engaged with local partners in ensuring that we have the best possible deal for the borderlands, including her part of the UK.

Rural NHS Hospitals: Public Transport

Robert Halfon: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the provision in Scotland of public transport servicing rural NHS hospitals.

David Mundell: Transport and healthcare policy both fall within the competence of the Scottish Government. Nevertheless, the UK Government remain open to discussing best practice with the devolved Administrations.

Robert Halfon: NHS car parking charges were scrapped in Scotland in 2008, saving patients, visitors and staff £35 million. Will my right hon. Friend work with the rest of the UK Government to scrap hospital car parking charges across the UK?

David Mundell: I am sure that my colleagues in the Cabinet with the relevant responsibilities will have heard my right hon. Friend’s plea. He has in the past been a very effective campaigner on such matters.

Foreign Direct Investment

Theresa Villiers: What steps he is taking to encourage foreign direct investment in Scotland.

Mel Stride: The UK promotes UK FDI throughout the world. In 2017, 76,000 new jobs were created in the UK as a consequence. There are 141 FDI projects in Scotland, creating about 4,000 jobs in Scotland.

Theresa Villiers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons behind record levels of foreign direct investment into Scotland is its place in the United Kingdom, the most successful political union in history?

Mel Stride: I agree entirely with that. Scotland benefits enormously through being part of what is the world’s fifth largest economy and one of the most dynamic and successful economies in the world.

Stewart McDonald: Does the Financial Secretary agree with me that the First Minister has an important role to play in bringing foreign investment to Scotland and that any criticisms, including those from his own colleagues in Holyrood, border on the provincial to the ridiculous, unless of course they believe that the office of First Minister is a stay-at-home job?

Mel Stride: The First Minister of course has a critical role in ensuring that investment is channelled towards Scotland, but I do not believe that promoting Scottish independence is a way of attracting investment.

Kirstene Hair: On the First Minister’s recent trip to Canada, it was reported that she did not mention Scotland’s proudest export, Scotch whisky, once. Does the Minister agree with me that the best way for the First Minister to secure more foreign direct investment into Scotland is to stop prancing around the world flogging independence, and do what she is supposed to be doing, which is to be back in the country she is supposed to be leading? She should be reducing taxes, bettering our public services and making Scotland a more lucrative place in which to do business?

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Increasing investment in Scotland is not about promoting Scottish independence; it is about promoting Scottish products and business. We froze duty on whisky at the last Budget —whisky itself represents about 20% of all the food and drink sales from the United Kingdom. We will stand behind that and other Scottish exports.

Scottish Veterans

Bill Grant: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the welfare of Scottish veterans.

Chris Davies: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the welfare of Scottish veterans.

David Mundell: As members of the ministerial covenant and veterans board, the Secretary of State for Defence and I have worked closely together and with the devolved Administrations on the ambitious UK-wide veterans strategy, encompassing  devolved areas, including housing, education and mental health, to address the needs of veterans in all parts of the UK, including Scotland.

Bill Grant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, sadly, some veterans may find themselves homeless. What engagement has he had with the Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland to help resolve this matter?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend will be aware that housing is a devolved area and the responsibility of the Scottish Government. However, the UK Government support the veterans gateway, which, among other things, provides advice to veterans on housing and accommodation in Scotland and across the UK.

Chris Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first ever UK-wide veterans strategy is a fantastic example of the significant collaboration that occurs every day between the UK and the Scottish Government?

David Mundell: Yes, indeed—I am very happy to confirm that. Although we see a lot of politicking in this Chamber and in Holyrood, the fact is that on a day-to-day basis the Scottish Government, the UK Government and indeed the Welsh Assembly Government can work productively together.

Santander Branch Closures

Angela Crawley: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of Santander on that bank’s proposed branch closures in Scotland.

Mel Stride: Bank branch closures are commercial decisions; they are not for the Government. However, we do recognise the difficulties that they bring. That is why we are committed, among other measures, to banking facilities within a Post Office network—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. A lot of noisy, private conversations are taking place. That is unsound on two counts. First, it is rather a discourtesy to a senior member of the Government and, although he seems modest about it and unperturbed, I am not. Secondly, it means that the House is deprived of the joy of listening to the Minister’s mellifluous tones. The Minister is welcome to continue, at a suitable pace, with his answer.

Mel Stride: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker. I was concluding by saying that we are fully committed to the 11,500 post offices up and down the United Kingdom, most of which provide banking services.

Angela Crawley: Santander will be closing 15 branches across Scotland, including in Lanark in my constituency. People and businesses across Clydesdale depend on this service, which cannot be delivered by post offices. Will the Secretary of State call a halt to these closures?

Mel Stride: As I have already outlined, these are commercial decisions to be taken by Santander and other banks. We have supported the access to banking  protocol, which sets out clear measures that banks must take when they do close branches, to ensure that local customers are supported.

Luke Graham: As my right hon. Friend said, some of these decisions are commercial ones, on which the Government cannot intervene. However, they can intervene more on the Post Office side. Will he meet me to discuss access to cash and the campaign that Which? is running, as well as how we can support the communities impacted by bank closures, such as Comrie and Alloa in my constituency?

Mel Stride: Yes.

John Bercow: I gently point out that the issue extends beyond the particular bank branches with which the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) is concerned. If, however, there is a sudden outbreak of unexpected shyness and reticence, the House will note that. It is a most unusual state of affairs: when previously there were significant numbers of Members bobbing up and down, with a view to taking part—

David Linden: rose—

John Bercow: Ah! I call Mr David Linden.

David Linden: Will the Minister, since he has been so generous in agreeing to meet hon. Members, agree to meet me to discuss protecting the Santander branch in Parkhead and telling the bank to save our Santander?

Mel Stride: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow: We are grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and to the Minister for his characteristically pithy reply. We are much obliged to him for it.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Stephen Doughty: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 20 February.

Theresa May: First of all, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to our former colleague Paul Flynn. He was an outstanding parliamentarian and a tireless campaigner, and he championed his constituency of Newport West, and Wales, with energy and enthusiasm for over 30 years. Paul spent the vast majority of his career as a Back Bencher and wrote a helpful guide in his book “Commons Knowledge: How to be a Backbencher”, before being made shadow Leader of the House and shadow Secretary of State for Wales. But of course he will be remembered for one of the great parliamentary quotes. When he left Labour’s Front Bench in 2016, he said:
“Our glorious leader, in an act of pioneering diversity, courageously decided to give opportunities for geriatrics on the Front Bench and this was so successful that he decided to create opportunities for geriatrics on the Back Bench. I’m double blessed.”
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Stephen Doughty: May I add my tribute to the words of the Prime Minister for my former constituency neighbour, friend and Welsh Labour colleague Paul Flynn? He was a remarkable man. He will go down as one of the great parliamentarians of the past 40 years and was an inspiration to many of us. He once gave me a copy of that book when I was a teenager, so he must have seen something in me, Mr Speaker. I am rebellious, although maybe not quite as rebellious as him. He was a great man and he will be missed by all of us.
In the midst of political crisis, it is ever more important that we put our country first. With thousands of jobs at risk and our international reputation in question, will the Prime Minister now stop playing Russian roulette, rule out no deal, and put a deal back to the British people so they can have the final say?

Theresa May: First of all, the hon. Gentleman knows there are two ways in which it is possible to ensure that we do not see no deal. One is to stay in the European Union, which is not what the referendum result said, and the other is to agree a deal. What I am working on at the moment is taking the view of this House of Commons about the concerns on the backstop in the deal and working with Brussels to resolve that issue, such that this House will be able to agree a deal.

Theresa Villiers: This afternoon, the House will debate antisemitism. With that in mind, I quote from the statement of the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), who explained Labour inactivity on this issue:
“Given a choice between the support of antisemites and ridding Labour of Jew-hate, they have decided to side with antisemites.”
In the light of that, will the Prime Minister join me in urging Labour to rid its party of this scourge once and for all?

Theresa May: I think this is a very important issue that everybody in this House should take seriously. I never thought I would see the day when Jewish people in this country were concerned about their future in this country, and I never thought I would see the day when a once-proud Labour party was accused of institutional antisemitism by a former Member of that party. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to ensure that we act against antisemitism wherever and however it occurs. It is racism and we should act against it.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I start, Mr Speaker, by joining what you said on Monday in paying tribute to my friend and yours, Paul Flynn? He served in this House for over 30 years as the Member for Newport West. He was courageous; he was warm; he was witty. As the Prime Minister pointed out, he served briefly on the shadow Front Bench. When he came to his first shadow Cabinet meeting, he welcomed my
“diversity project to promote octogenarians”
to the shadow Cabinet. His book on how to become an MP is absolutely a must-read. He was respected all across the House and I think we are all going to miss his contributions, his wit and his wisdom. Our deepest  condolences to his wife Sam and all his family, and to his wider family across Newport and Wales. He was a truly wonderful man and a great and dear friend.
I also hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to Baroness Falkender, who died earlier this month, and send our condolences to her friends and family. When Marcia served with distinction as political secretary to Harold Wilson, she was subjected to a long campaign of misogynistic smear and innuendo. She suffered a great deal as a result, and we should remember the great work that she did as political secretary to Harold Wilson.
The Prime Minister just responded to a question on antisemitism. I simply say this: antisemitism has no place whatsoever in any of our political parties, in our life, in our society—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Mr Ellis, be quiet now and for the rest of the session. You used to practise as a barrister. You did not make those sorts of harrumphing noises in the courts; or if you did, no wonder you no longer practise there.

Jeremy Corbyn: As I was saying, antisemitism has no place whatsoever in our society or in any of our political parties, and my own political party takes the strongest action to deal with antisemitism wherever it rears its head.
Last week, an EU official said the UK Government were only “pretending to negotiate”, adding that there was
“nothing on the table from the British side,”,
so with just 37 days to go, can the Prime Minister be clear about what she will actually be proposing today when she travels to Brussels?

Theresa May: Of course there are a number of meetings taking place in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary and the Attorney General were in Brussels earlier this week and had a constructive and positive meeting with officials in the European Commission on the issue of alternative arrangements and work on alternative arrangements. The issue that I am taking to Brussels is the one I have been speaking to EU leaders about over the last few days—that is, the concern that was expressed in this House about ensuring that we could not find ourselves in the current backstop indefinitely. There a number of ways, as I have identified on a number of occasions at this Dispatch Box, to deal with that. I have referenced the work on alternative arrangements. There are also the options of an end-date or a unilateral exit mechanism and legal work—what matters in all of this are legally binding changes that ensure that we address the concern that has been raised by this House. That is what I will be discussing with the European Commission and will continue to discuss with it and European Union leaders.

Jeremy Corbyn: It sounds like it might be quite confusing for the European Union to understand exactly what the Prime Minister is turning up with, actually. She has had three groups of Back Benchers working on three proposals: first, to remove the backstop; secondly, to make the backstop time-limited; and thirdly, to give the UK the right to exit unilaterally. Which of these proposals is the Prime Minister negotiating for today: one, two or three?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman points out that, as I just said in my response to his question—he could have listened to that answer, but I am happy to repeat it—there are a number of ways in which it is possible to address the issue that has been raised by this House of Commons. Work is being undertaken on those various issues. On the alternative arrangements, for example, the Commission has raised questions, particularly about the extent to which derogation from European Union law would be necessary to put those in place, and there is concern about being able to achieve that if we are going to leave in time. Nevertheless, we have agreed that a workstream will go forward on those matters. We are also exploring the other issues, but the point is a very simple one. It is not just a question of saying to the European Union, “Actually, this is just the one thing.” It is a question of sitting down with the European Union and finding a solution that is going to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland, that is going to ensure that we deal with the concern that has been raised here in this House of Commons and that is going to enable a deal to be brought back to this House of Commons that it can support so that we leave on 29 March with a deal.

Jeremy Corbyn: Last week, a Foreign Office Minister said categorically:
“We are not leaving without a deal”,
but sadly he does not speak for the Government. The Prime Minister’s Business Minister says he is
“very conscious of the damage that not ruling out a hard Brexit is having on business and industry”.
People’s jobs and livelihoods are in the Prime Minister’s hands. Will she stop playing games with people’s jobs and make it very clear that no deal is absolutely ruled out?

Theresa May: People’s jobs and futures are in the hands of every Member of this House. Once again, the right hon. Gentleman could have listened to an answer I gave earlier, to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). There are only two ways to take no deal off the table: one is to back a deal, the other is to revoke article 50 and stay in the EU. The right hon. Gentleman has refused to back a deal, so the obvious conclusion is that he must want to revoke article 50. He can stand up now and tell us what his policy is—is it to back the deal or to stay in the EU?

Jeremy Corbyn: I did write the Prime Minister a very nice letter setting out our views. I am sure she received it and read it and I hope she will think on it.
It appears that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) was right when he said last week that in the event that the Prime Minister’s deal does not succeed
“this Government…and this Prime Minister…would prefer to…head for the exit door without a deal”.—[Official Report, 14 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 1108.]
He went on to say that it was “a terrifying fact”. Thousands of car workers in Derby, Sunderland, Birmingham and Swindon are facing redundancy. Does that matter to the Prime Minister?

Theresa May: We have seen decisions taken by car manufacturers, and obviously Honda’s decision this week is deeply disappointing, but it has made it absolutely  clear that this is not a Brexit-related decision, but a response to the change in the global car market. Of course jobs matter to the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about jobs, perhaps he would like to change the habit of a lifetime and stand up at that Dispatch Box and welcome the excellent job figures we have seen this week under this Government.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister does not seem very interested in listening to those companies and industry bodies that are saying they need a customs union. When she talks about jobs, will she also talk about those doing two or three jobs to make ends meet, those on zero-hours contracts, those so low paid they have to access food banks just to survive and those suffering from in-work poverty—on her watch, under her Government?
Last year, investment in the car industry halved. Brexit uncertainty is already costing investment, and where investment is cut today, jobs are cut tomorrow. That uncertainty would not end even if the Prime Minister’s rejected deal somehow got through, because it promises only the certainty of a “spectrum” of possible outcomes. Will she see sense and offer business and workers the certainty of a customs union that could protect jobs and industry in this country?

Theresa May: What the right hon. Gentleman will also have heard from car manufacturers is their support for the deal the Government negotiated with the EU. If he wants to talk about jobs, I am very happy to talk about jobs, because what do we see in the latest figures? We see employment at a record high and unemployment at its lowest since the 1970s; we see that 96% of the increase in employment in the last year has come from full-time work; we see youth unemployment almost halved since 2010, and female employment is at a record high. [Interruption.] It is all very well shouting from the Front Bench, but let us look at Labour’s record in government. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Mr Lavery, calm yourself. You have applied to be a statesman, but there is an apprenticeship, and you have to undergo it, but it is not assisted by such sedentary ranting.

Theresa May: Let us look at Labour’s record in government on employment: unemployment rose by nearly half a million; female unemployment rose by 26%; youth unemployment rose by 44%; and the number of households where no one had ever worked nearly doubled. That is the record of a Labour Government under which working people pay the price of Labour.

Jeremy Corbyn: Child poverty halved under the Labour Government. We invested in Sure Start—in children’s centres—and a future for young people. The Prime Minister should get out a bit more and hear the anger of so many young people around this country at what they are suffering under her Government and on her watch.
The chair of the manufacturers’ organisation Make UK said yesterday:
“I am saddened by the way that some of our politicians have put selfish political ideology ahead of the national interest and people’s livelihoods and left us facing the catastrophic prospect of leaving the EU next month with no deal”.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Food and Drink Federation, the National Farmers Union and the CBI all want a disastrous no deal ruled out. Along with the TUC, many also support the UK being in a permanent customs union.
There is a little over a month to go and the Government have failed to put the country first. There is the crisis of jobs going and industries under threat, and the Prime Minister indulges in what her own Business Minister calls “fanciful nonsense”. When is she going to put the interests of the people of this country before the interests of the Conservative party?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman has consistently put his party political interest ahead of the national interest. We can take no deal off the table by agreeing a deal, yet at every stage he has acted to frustrate a deal. He has acted to make no deal more likely, but that is not surprising from this Labour party. What do we see from his Labour party? Hamas and Hezbollah are friends, and Israel and the United States are enemies; Hatton a hero, and Churchill a villain. Attlee and Bevan will be spinning in their graves. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done to a once-proud Labour party. We will never let him do it to our country.

Charles Walker: My right hon. Friend will know from Shelter that many people in receipt of benefits are blocked from renting in the private sector. These people are often carers or have a disability. I know that No. 10 is working with Shelter to resolve this problem. Will the Prime Minister give all her officials her support to resolve this pressing issue?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We are working with Shelter. I urge that work to go ahead to a fruitful conclusion. Stuart Carroll, one my local councillors, has raised this issue with me and has come in to work with No. 10. It is an important issue and we are working on it to find a satisfactory resolution soon.

Ian Blackford: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the sad death of Paul Flynn? He will be missed by many, and thoughts and prayers are with Sam and his family. He was a unique and truly gifted parliamentarian. It was a pleasure to serve on a Committee with him and it was a pleasure to have known him.
Westminster is broken. We are in the middle of a constitutional crisis and on the brink of a Brexit disaster, yet this place is at war with itself. The Tories and the Labour party are imploding. Scotland deserves better. We need a way out. Time is running out. Will this House get to vote on the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal next week, and if not, when?

Theresa May: Obviously, we are in discussions with the European Union and will bring a vote back when it is possible to bring a deal back that deals with the issue that the House of Commons has raised. We have listened to the House of Commons. We are working on the views of the House with the European Union, and we will bring a vote back when it is the right time to do so.

Ian Blackford: Quite simply, that is not good enough. Time is running out. Three and a half thousand jobs have been lost from Honda; the NFU says that a no-deal Brexit is the “stuff of nightmares”; and 100,000 jobs in Scotland are under threat. Prime Minister, you are bringing the UK economy to its knees. How many warnings, how many jobs and how many resignations will it take for the Prime Minister to stop this madness? If you do not act, Prime Minister, Scotland will.

Theresa May: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we see debt down, the deficit down, jobs up, taxes down—oh, taxes down not in Scotland of course, where the SNP is putting taxes up. He says it is not good enough, but I will tell him what is not good enough: it is an SNP that wants to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom, knowing full well that being a member of the United Kingdom is worth £1,400 every year for each person in Scotland. He talks about damaging the economy; the only people who are going to damage the economy in Scotland are sitting on the SNP Benches.

Leo Docherty: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in thanking the Home Secretary for making it very clear that those who join or support terrorist organisations abroad do not deserve British citizenship and that this Government are not a soft touch for terrorists?

Theresa May: It is an important message for us to give that we are very clear that we will take action against those who are involved in terrorism. Obviously, each Home Secretary deals with the question of deprivation on a number of occasions; I dealt with deprivation cases myself, and there is a very clear set of criteria on which the Home Secretary considers that matter. But the overall point my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right: how important it is for this Government and this country to make it very clear that we will take action against those who are involved in terrorism.

Eleanor Smith: Before going into my question, may I say a few words about our colleague Paul Flynn? I went to Bangladesh with him and his wife and it was absolutely lovely. He was a very nice person and surely will be missed. I give my condolences to his wife, Sam, and hopefully she will get in contact with me as soon as she can. Thank you.
Right, Prime Minister: Heidi Prescott is a little girl who is my constituent, and she was born with a rare muscular wasting spinal disease called spinal muscular atrophy. She is 10 years old and her condition is worsening. Heidi is now losing the ability to walk and is spending most of her time in a wheelchair. There is a treatment that could help Heidi, slow down the deterioration and prolong her life; it is called Spinraza. It is not available in England but will be in Scotland in April 2019. Why can this treatment not be accessible to my constituent Heidi and other children in England with this disease?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady has raised a particular case about Heidi, her constituent, and obviously I am sorry to hear that Heidi is in these circumstances. On the question of the drugs and treatments that are available, obviously we have a robust independent process through the National Institute for Health and Care  Excellence reviews to look at new medicines that are possible, and this is the case with Spinraza. I am pleased that Biogen has, as I understand it, submitted a revised submission for the NICE appraisal committee to consider and a meeting has been arranged for 6 March when those recommendations will be considered.

Sir David Amess: All parliamentarians should be horrified that any human being would spend the night sleeping on a pavement. In that regard, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity, following the visit from the relevant Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), to acknowledge that Southend-on-Sea Borough Council together with its associated bodies has reduced rough sleeping by 85%, and that that is another reason why Southend should become a city? And will the Government do all they can to address issues of alcohol abuse and mental health?

Theresa May: First, well done to my hon. Friend for once again getting in his bid for Southend to be a city. He raises very important issues; we are addressing the issues of alcoholism and mental health, and of course these are often connected when people find themselves homeless or rough sleeping. I am happy to congratulate Southend council on the work it has done to reduce rough sleeping in its area. I am pleased to say that the rough sleeping initiative which the Government have introduced, where we are working with the local authorities with the highest levels of rough sleeping, has seen rough sleeping falling by 23% in those areas, so action is being taken and that is having an impact. Of course there is more to do, and we focus on those issues that underlie the problems that those who find themselves rough sleeping are experiencing.

Matthew Pennycook: Hundreds of leaseholders in my constituency, and many thousands more across the country, are still living in privately owned buildings covered in dangerous Grenfell-style cladding, and they have no idea whether they will have to pay the full cost of the remedial works and interim fire safety measures. I am sure that the Prime Minister will tell me that she expects building owners not to pass on those costs and that nothing is ruled out, but my constituents want to know when the Government will act to make private owners pay, rather than just continuing to ask them nicely.

Theresa May: I think that the hon. Gentleman has heard me respond to a similar issue before. We have repeatedly called on private building owners not to pass costs on to leaseholders, and as a result of our interventions, 216 owners have either started, completed or have commitments in place to remediate. Fifty are not co-operating, but we are maintaining pressure on them and we rule nothing out. We have established a taskforce to oversee the remediation of private sector buildings, and it is actively working to do just that.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Sometimes our public services fail to provide our military personnel, our veterans or their families with the support that they need, and they have nowhere to take their case for arbitration. Will the Prime Minister meet me to  discuss my campaign to create an armed forces ombudsman, so that those who have served our country will know that they are valued?

Theresa May: First, I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she has worked to champion the armed forces covenant and the interests of the armed forces. Of course we should all recognise the sacrifice and dedication of our armed forces and the work that they do for us, day in and day out. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss her proposal.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Alongside the tributes paid to our late dear colleague Paul Flynn, I hope that the Prime Minister will join me in recognising his dogged determination in his fight for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis. Since November, however, the rescheduling of medicinal cannabis has not changed anything. Not a single new NHS prescription has been issued, and this is causing the families of children with epilepsy, in particular, unbearable suffering. It is evident that someone, somewhere, is blocking this. Did the Government mean to block this life-changing medicine for those children? If not, what will they do about it?

Theresa May: Of course the Government have taken action in relation to the issue of medicinal cannabis, but the important thing is that decisions are taken on the basis of clinical evidence by those who are best able to take those decisions, rather than by Ministers. A process has been put in place to ensure that, where there are cases, those cases are looked at very carefully and that decisions are properly taken by the clinicians who are best placed to do so.

Philip Hollobone: The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on his swift and decisive action in removing British citizenship from Shamima Begum, but the fact remains that, of the 900 British nationals who have gone to support Daesh fighting against British armed forces in Iraq and Syria, only 40 have been prosecuted. With 400 of those individuals set to return to this country in the near future, will the Prime Minister revisit the provisions of the Treason Act to ensure that these appalling activities receive suitable and just punishment?

Theresa May: Obviously, our priority is to ensure safety and security here in the UK. We also recognise that anyone who has travelled to Syria not only puts themselves in considerable danger but potentially poses a serious national security risk. Any British citizen who returns from taking part in the conflict must be in no doubt that they will be questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted. It is right that we follow that process, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that one of the issues in looking at prosecution is ensuring that there is evidence to enable a prosecution to take place. Decisions on how people are dealt with are taken on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that the most appropriate action is taken. We are ensuring that, in every decision, we put the protection and safety of the public first.

Tom Brake: The Prime Minister is correct: history will judge us all, and those in positions of authority will be  particularly harshly judged—people such as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—for dividing the country and their parties. Will the Prime Minister finally rule out no deal and stem the bloodletting in British jobs, dismiss the nonsensical notion of a jobs-first Brexit and extend article 50 to enable the people finally to vote, given that her sole justification for backing Brexit is the will of the people?

Theresa May: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about ensuring that we do not leave the European Union without a deal, he has a simple route through this, which is to back the deal that the Government bring back from the European Union.

Oliver Heald: Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to my late old friend Steve Dymond, a haemophiliac who was infected by contaminated blood? He fought for over 20 years, showing great bravery and resilience, and was supported throughout by his wife Su. He was grateful when the Langstaff inquiry was set up, so does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that all the NHS documents and medical notes that the inquiry may need are made available so that it can be fully comprehensive?

Theresa May: I join my right hon. and learned Friend in paying tribute to Steve Dymond. The contaminated blood scandal was an appalling tragedy that should never have happened, and it is vital that the victims who have suffered so much and their families get the answers and justice they deserve, for which, as we all know, they have waited decades. I am assured by the Department of Health and Social Care that it has already sent thousands of documents to the inquiry and will send more when necessary, but we are committed to being open and transparent with the inquiry and have waived the usual legal privileges to assist the process. It is important that the inquiry is able to get to the truth.

Phil Wilson: Prime Minister, Conservative Governments have taken £6 billion out of the north-east since 2010. Can we have it back, please?

Theresa May: This is a Government who are ensuring that we are working across the whole country and that we are delivering an economy for everyone across the whole country. The hon. Gentleman talks about billions of pounds in relation to the north, but he may just want to reflect on the £13 billion being put into transport in the north of this country.

Maria Caulfield: Will the Prime Minister join me welcoming Councillor Anne Meadows, who has today left the Labour party in Brighton and Hove City Council, crossing the floor to join the Conservatives, who are now the largest group on the council? Councillor Meadows left the Labour party because of the rise of antisemitism and bullying that she and her colleagues have experienced from Momentum activists—so much so that only seven of the 23 councillors will be standing again in May. Does the Prime Minister agree that antisemitism is rife throughout the whole Labour party?

Theresa May: I agree with my hon. Friend. As she says, Anne Meadows, a long-serving Labour councillor on Brighton and Hove City Council, has today chosen  to leave Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party and join the Conservatives, due to the bullying and antisemitism that she has received from Momentum and the hard left. That is the harsh reality that decent, moderate Labour councillors are having to face every day, due to Jeremy Corbyn’s failure to stand up to bullying and racism in his party. We welcome Councillor Meadows into the Conservative party with open arms, and I am sure that she will be an excellent Conservative councillor.

Rosie Duffield: I have a constituent who was left doubly incontinent following a serious and violent sexual assault. She previously had a lifetime award for disability living allowance. However, recent personal independence payment assessments have concluded that she is not entitled to DLA or the mobility components of PIP, despite her extremely difficult condition, which dominates every aspect of her daily life. Will the Prime Minister please ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to look urgently at the Department’s failure to recognise the impact of this serious condition?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady will recognise that I am not able to respond to the individual details of the case at the Dispatch Box, but I will ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions and the relevant Minister look at the case and respond to her.

David Tredinnick: Improving mental healthcare has rightly become a priority for the Government, but are the Government doing anything to improve the mental health situation of hard-pressed NHS staff who deserve support?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Our dedicated NHS staff, day in and day out, are delivering an unwavering commitment in caring for us all, and obviously it is necessary that we ensure their mental health is looked after. We are setting up a dedicated mental health support service, which will offer NHS staff confidential advice and support 24 hours a day. It will be staffed by qualified professionals who have had training in situations that are unique to the NHS and will ensure that mental health referrals for NHS employees, from either a general practitioner or an occupational health clinician, are fast-tracked. It is right that mental and physical wellbeing is at the forefront of our health service, and it is right that we are taking this action to support our dedicated NHS staff.

Caroline Lucas: The Local Government Association has identified a potential £1.6 billion deficit for special needs education, but the Government responded with a paltry £350 million. As a result, headteachers in my Brighton constituency are literally having sleepless nights. Vital reading programmes for children with special educational needs are being cut and crucial support staff are being lost. Instead of repeating her usual line on schools funding, will the Prime Minister agree to meet a delegation of headteachers from Brighton so she can hear direct from them about the real pain that is being caused?

Theresa May: I am sure the hon. Lady will look forward to working well with the largest group on Brighton and Hove City Council, which is now the  Conservative group. She raises the issue of education funding, and she refers to answers I have given in the past. We have been putting more funding into education, and we have been doing it in a number of ways. We have announced extra support, as she says, for children with complex special educational needs, and that is building on the £6 billion in place for it this year—the highest level on record. She says it is not enough, but it is the highest level on record. We are also putting money into new school places and better facilities for children with special educational needs.

Robert Goodwill: Communities across the country are installing defibrillators. The village of Brompton in my constituency has one in a former telephone box that is a stone’s throw away from the main road but is not directly visible from it. Does the Prime Minister think it is a good idea to have a nationally approved defibrillator road sign so that these lifesaving devices can be quickly accessed in the event of an emergency?

Theresa May: I commend the action being taken in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, and I see the same action being taken in my constituency, with people ensuring that defibrillators are available. He raises a very interesting point, and I will ask the Department for Transport to look at it seriously.

David Linden: Recent research from the charity Bliss shows that two thirds of dads have to return to work while their premature or sick baby is still in a neonatal intensive care unit. Does the Prime Minister think that is unjust? Will she work with me to ensure a change in employment law so that dads and parents of premature babies, like me, get the support they need to support their family?

Theresa May: This issue is close to the heart of many Members, and it is particularly close to the heart of the hon. Gentleman. I know that he met Ministers to discuss this issue last year. Officials in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are undertaking a short, focused internal review of provision for parents of premature, sick and multiple babies to obtain an understanding of the barriers to participating in the labour market. They are working with organisations such as Bliss, the Smallest Things and the Twins and Multiple Births Association to better understand these issues, and they have held focus groups with a number of parents. They have offered to discuss their conclusions with those interested parties in due course, and I am sure that they will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this in taking it forward.

Shailesh Vara: The Prime Minister will be aware that the British Army has engaged in a recruitment campaign in Commonwealth countries. However, only after soldiers have signed up for minimum four-year contracts do they find out that they are not allowed to bring their children to this country. Given that these brave women and men are prepared to put their lives on the line for us and our country, I hope that she will agree that this needs to be looked into urgently. Will she therefore kindly agree to meet me and others concerned to see how this matter can be progressed?

Theresa May: I am aware of the issue that my hon. Friend has raised. I am told by the Ministry of Defence that it does make sure that information is available to individuals about what their situation will be. This matter is not just of concern to the MOD; obviously, the issue of the immigration rules rests with the Home Office as well. I will certainly meet him to discuss this issue.

Alex Cunningham: Some 70% of flights are taken by 15% of the population, yet the Tees Mayor has just spent up to £90 million of taxpayers’ money buying an airport when most people across the area cannot get a bus home after 6.30 pm. Could the Prime Minister help them out?

Theresa May: I recognise the importance of buses to our communities. We have been spending £250 million every year to keep fares down and maintain an extensive network. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that since 2010 we have seen 10,000 new routes across the north and midlands, and live local bus services registered have increased by 15% in just the past two years.

Roger Gale: Paul Flynn was, in his time, a valued member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I know that colleagues on both sides of the House who serve on that body would like to join others in expressing our condolences to his family.
My armed forces constituents will be pleased to know that, with effect from the start of this year, ex-servicemen and women will receive ID cards. Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing the hope that, in time, that card will become a passport to public recognition of some of the bravest and finest in our country?

Theresa May: We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the ex-forces community and we are working hard, as my hon. Friend has indicated, to ensure that they receive the support they deserve. As he says, any personnel who have left the military since December 2018 will automatically be given one of these new ID cards, which will allow them to maintain a tangible link to their career in the forces. As the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has responsibility for defence people and veterans, said:
“These new cards celebrate the great commitment and dedication of those who have served this country, and I hope they can provide a further link to ex-personnel and the incredible community around them.”
I hope that they will, as my hon. Friend says, be a sign of the incredible valour that those ex-servicemen and women have shown.

Angela Eagle: In 2017, during the election, we learned what the Prime Minister’s definition of “strong and stable” was. As our automotive industry disintegrates before our eyes, as investment is put on hold and as growth slows, are we now learning what the Prime Minister’s definition of “smooth and orderly Brexit” is?

Theresa May: I say to the hon. Lady, as I say to every Member of this House, that there will come a further point, in this Chamber, when every Member will  have a decision to take on whether we want to ensure that we deliver on the vote of the referendum—most Members stood on a manifesto to do that—by leaving the EU with a deal. That will be a decision for all   Members of this House. I know where I stand: I believe we should be leaving with a deal. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees.

LEAVING THE EU: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEAL

Ian Blackford: (Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the economic impact of her Government’s proposed deal for the UK exiting the EU.

Mel Stride: At the end of November, the Government published our analysis that assessed the economic impact of leaving the European Union. It not only included an analysis of the Government’s negotiating position, as set out in the July 2018 White Paper, but went further still and considered three other scenarios: a free trade agreement, a European economic area-type relationship, and a no-deal scenario.
Specifically, the analysis showed that the outcomes for the proposed future UK-EU relationship would deliver significantly higher economic output—about seven percentage points higher—than the no-deal scenario, which would result in lower economic activity in all sector groups of the economy compared with the White Paper scenario. That is why we should pass the deal, to avoid no deal and support jobs and the UK economy.
In publishing the work, the Government delivered on their commitment to provide an appropriate level of analysis to Parliament. In addition, the House has had plenty of opportunity to debate both the analysis and the deal that is on the table. As the Prime Minister has said, we will bring a revised deal back to the House for a second meaningful vote as soon as we possibly can.
In the meantime, it is right that that the Government are afforded the flexibility and space to continue our negotiations. That is because the agreement of the political declaration will be followed by negotiations on the legal text. The UK and the EU recognise that that means there could be a spectrum of different outcomes. We need to approach the negotiations with as much strength as possible. The focus must now be on the future, planning and prioritising that which matters.
Let me remind the House that we will have an implementation period, a new close relationship with the EU and, crucially, the ability to strike trade deals around the world. We are bringing back control over our money, borders and laws to mould a prosperous and ambitious new path for our country, and on our terms. No matter what approach we take, the UK economy will continue to be strong and grow into the future.

Ian Blackford: With respect to the Minister, this was of course a question to the Prime Minister, and it is the Prime Minister who should be answering. This is a matter of the utmost importance, because this House is going to be asked to vote on the Prime Minister’s deal. The specific question I asked was about the economic analysis that the Government have done on their deal. It is quite clear from the Minister’s answer that the Government have done no analysis on this deal. On arguably the most important matter that this House has voted on since the second world war, we do not have an economic impact assessment from the Government. It is, once again, this Conservative Government treating this House and the United Kingdom with contempt. It is a disgrace that the Government have continued to duck and dive in respect of their responsibilities.
Economists are clear: the Prime Minister’s deal is set to hit GDP, the public finances and living standards. Analysis published by the London School of Economics estimates that
“the Brexit deal could reduce UK GDP per capita by between 1.9% and 5.5% in ten years’ time, compared to remaining in the EU.”
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has warned that
“if the government’s proposed Brexit deal is implemented, then GDP in the longer term will be around 4 per cent lower than it would have been had the UK stayed in the EU.”
Bank of England analysis states the UK Government’s deal will raise unemployment by 4% and inflation by 2%. The Prime Minister is running feart of the truth, with her Government refusing to admit the damage that her deal will do.
The Government cannot claim that their November document covers their deal. Let us look at the facts. Page 17 of the Treasury analysis looks at the modelled average free trade agreement and states:
“As such, it does not seek to define or model a bespoke agreement.”
But the Prime Minister tells us she has a bespoke deal. The Treasury analysis continues:
“This scenario is not indicative of government policy, as it would not meet UK objectives including avoiding a hard border”
in Northern Ireland.
There we have it in black and white: the Treasury analysis conducted last year does not account for the Prime Minister’s deal. So, I say to the Government, where is the analysis? MPs continue to be expected to vote on the proposed deal without the Government explaining the economic consequences. That is the height of irresponsibility.
The deal would be a disaster for Scotland, taking us out of the EU single market and customs union. We know that up to 100,000 jobs in Scotland are under threat. The Government are sticking their head in the sand. Everyone knows this Government are bringing our economy to its knees. We cannot allow the Tories to drive us off the cliff edge.
No Government can be allowed to bring forward a vote on such a significant matter without an economic assessment. It must be published. Shame on the Prime Minister if she fails to protect our economy; shame on those on the Government Benches if they allow businesses to collapse and jobs to be lost; and shame on any MP, including the Leader of the Opposition, if they march through the Lobby to deliver a deal that secures economic catastrophe.
No Member should believe that there is a binary choice; there is not. This is not a choice of no deal or this deal. Both are bad. Both will plunge our economy into an unmitigated disaster.

John Bercow: Order. Before I ask the Minister to apply, I very generously did not interrupt the flow of the right hon. Gentleman’s eloquence—or, indeed, for that matter the eloquence of his flow. However, by way of a public information notice, may I say to the House—this is not directed particularly at the right hon. Gentleman, as I have seen this burgeoning phenomenon in recent times—that an urgent question is supposed to be that, not an urgent oration? With whatever rhetorical force and insistence it is delivered, it is supposed to be a  question and I have noticed over recent times an increasing tendency on the part of Members who have secured such an opportunity, through the courtesy of the Chair, to launch into a lengthy preamble, sometimes constituting the entirety of their remarks.
For future reference, because in future I will have to cut people off if they abuse the parameters, however inadvertently, it is supposed to be a question; a sentence of preamble is one thing, but thereafter a Member should put a series of inquiries to the Minister on the Treasury Bench. We will leave it there for now. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, but I know that he will not misbehave again.

Mel Stride: I thank the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for his vociferous oration, but vociferous orations are no substitute for the facts. Let me remind him of some of the facts in respect of the points he made. He says that we have made no analysis of the impact of these arrangements on the United Kingdom economy, and that is simply not the case. The information we have come forward with is a robust analysis of the future outcomes of the four different scenarios that we consider in that analysis. He levels the charge that we are in some way treating the United Kingdom with contempt, and that is certainly not the case. The House has been very deeply preoccupied with matters of Brexit and the nature of how we might exit the European Union, and the Prime Minister has set out that there will be further debate this time next week to be followed, in the event that we do not pass a meaningful vote, with another amendable motion to be considered by the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also says that the deal, as he terms it, would have a negative impact on the UK economy. The analysis clearly shows that, under every single scenario it analyses, it is better to have this deal than no deal or any of the alternatives. Finally, he decried the fact that we had not put forward a bespoke deal for analysis within our analysis, and that illustrates his lack of understanding of what the future political declaration is all about, which is a range of possible outcomes. That is entirely what the analysis models.

Kenneth Clarke: It is perfectly obvious to all those involved in the negotiations, both the British negotiators and the EU negotiators, that if Britain were to leave the EU with no deal, it would be disastrous for the British economy in the medium to long term and extremely damaging to the economies of many EU countries, particularly those nearest the UK. Does the Minister accept that it is rather silly to think that it is useful in these negotiations to take up the simplistic view that we must pretend we are threatening to leave with no deal to improve our bargaining position? Will he reassure me that the negotiations are proceeding on the basis that both sides know that they do not want no deal and that they are therefore trying to limit the damaging consequences of risking that? What we should really pursue is retaining the benefits of the customs union and the single market and continued free trade with our largest customer in the world, as it will always be, as is being urged on us by every industrial leader in this country.

Mel Stride: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right that no deal would be a very unsatisfactory outcome. Of course, what the House will appreciate is that the only way to avoid a no deal is to secure a deal. That is why the Prime Minister will shortly return to Brussels to have further discussions with the EU Commissioner, Jean-Claude Juncker, in pursuit of one.

Jonathan Reynolds: For more than two years, businesses and trade unions have called for clarity about the Government’s Brexit deal, and for two years there has been nothing but delay and a total lack of clarity. What has been clear from the wide range of independent analyses that we have received is that the Government’s Brexit deal is not good news for our economy. Even the Government’s own modelling said that the economy would be nearly 4% smaller if the Government’s deal was agreed, equivalent to £83 billion if it happened today. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister’s deal has struggled to command any widespread support, leading to the largest ever defeat in the House of Commons.
The climate of uncertainty created by the Government’s Brexit blundering, particularly their refusal to take no deal of the table, led first to businesses delaying investment decisions. Now, decisions are being taken, but as a result of the uncertainty and insecurity created by the Government, those decisions are to cut investment and jobs. The result, as the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, told us this month, is that business investment in 2018 fell by 3.7% in year-on-year terms.
Let us go through some of those decisions. Jaguar Land Rover has cut 4,500 jobs, Ford cut 1,000 jobs in Bridgend and Honda’s Swindon closure, supposedly not related to Brexit, will mean that 3,500 will lose their employment. In financial services, HSBC has announced that it will move seven offices from London to Paris in 2019. Deutsche Bank has said that it is considering moving 75% of its balance sheet from London to Frankfurt.
This is not just about Brexit. It is about how the Government have failed to produce an economic plan that tackles our productivity crisis and increases investment for the long term. They are a Government putting our economy at risk through failed economic management and failing to secure a Brexit deal that would protect jobs and the economy.
May I ask the Financial Secretary first, what happened to the promise of frictionless trade? Secondly, where is the detail businesses need about the promised customs arrangements? Thirdly, can the Government tell us what mysterious technology will facilitate their proposed customs arrangements? Fourthly, why have the Government failed even to mention the issue of intellectual property protections in the future partnership agreement? Finally, will the Government confirm that there has been a dilution of protections from road hauliers and passenger transport operators since the earlier Chequers commitments?
It is the role of the Government’s Treasury team, above all others, to stand up to protect our economy. It is as though the Chancellor has simply gone missing. The Government have run out of time. We cannot wait any longer for the answers we need and the country cannot wait any longer for the answers it deserves.

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman accuses Government Members of having a lack of clarity on the issues around Brexit. I find that slightly rich coming from the Labour Front Bench, given that the position of the Leader of the Opposition has flip-flopped as to whether to be in or out of the customs union, and whether or not to honour the pledge that he appeared to make at his party conference for a second referendum, which appears to have been parked now. It seems to me that the Opposition are trying to ride at least two horses on this issue, if not more, and we know what happens if you do that, Mr Speaker—it tends to get rather painful in the end, as we are perhaps seeing in more recent events.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the parliamentary defeat that the Government suffered more recently. He chose to overlook the fact that the House did unite around a particular way forward, and that is to seek changes to the backstop arrangements. That is now the main focus of the negotiations that are continuing in Brussels. He referred to various impacts of employers’ decisions and changes, and the impact on the economy and employment, which gives me a good opportunity to remind him of some facts. As a country, we have about the highest level of employment in our history; we have the lowest level of unemployment since the mid-1970s; and we have halved youth unemployment since 2010. Lest it be forgotten, every Labour Government in history have always left office with unemployment higher than it was when they entered office.

John Redwood: Will the Treasury issue a codicil or a clarification of its economic forecasts, looking at what happens if we leave in March under the managed World Trade Organisation model, when we spend the £39 billion-plus of the withdrawal agreement on boosting public services and boosting our economy at home? We are bound to be better off—is that not true?

Mel Stride: It is important to recognise that the modelling is on the basis of the status quo, so the model would not take into account factors of the kind that my right hon. Friend has raised, or indeed changes in productivity or trade flows and other factors. It will be for individual Members to assess the specific issues that he raised, in that context.

Hilary Benn: Things have come to a pretty pass when here we are, 37 days from Brexit, and the House of Commons is actually discussing which of several options—all of them economically damaging—we should choose for the future of our country’s economy. Since it is the Government’s policy that they are planning for a no-deal Brexit, could the Minister explain to the House what possible justification there is for that? Given that their own economic assessment shows that it would have the most damaging impact on the British economy, how could such an act of economic self-harm ever be justified?

Mel Stride: What the right hon. Gentleman overlooks is that whilst he is absolutely right that no deal, in essence, is something to be avoided, and indeed is not in the interests either of the United Kingdom or of the European Union, that is not the same thing as saying that we should be reckless and not make sure that we are prepared for it, should it happen. That is precisely what we are doing.

Michael Fallon: Will the Financial Secretary undertake to publish to the House, in good time for the meaningful vote, the decisions that he and his colleagues are currently taking on the tariffs that would apply in the event of no deal, including which industries would be protected, at what rate, and what the impact would be on prices?

Mel Stride: Tariff policy in the event of no deal is clearly something that we are heavily engaged with. My right hon. Friend rightly identifies the aspects or elements of tariffs that relate to protecting domestic producers, and that of course will be a very important part of the considerations that we are undertaking at the moment. We will come to the House in due course with the details of those tariffs.

Vincent Cable: Brexit uncertainty is one of several factors contributing to the crisis in the car industry, which previous Governments—Conservative, Labour and coalition—did so much to promote. What assurances have the Government had from Toyota, BMW and Vauxhall that they are not going to follow the pattern of disinvestment that we are now seeing?

Mel Stride: I think the right hon. Gentleman’s question would be most appropriately directed to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy as to the specifics of the companies that he listed. Honda, a company that has already been mentioned in this respect, has made it clear that its decision to leave the United Kingdom is not a consequence of Brexit; it is more to do with international changes around cars and the position of diesel, and of course the deal that Japan has struck on zero tariffs in a few years’ time for exports from Japan to the European Union.

Desmond Swayne: What would be the economic impact of membership of a customs union where access to our market was conceded to a third party without any reciprocal arrangement of our access to theirs?

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend asks a specific, interesting question, which prompts many other questions on exactly the form of the model that he is postulating. The important thing, when it comes to access to our markets in future, is that we have a tariff policy that protects domestic producers in our economy where they require protection, and ensures that our trade remedy regime is robust, so that we can prevent the dumping of products into the UK market, and also is sufficiently liberalised such that the cost savings that would accrue from liberalised tariffs are there for the benefit both of consumers and those who use those products in their production processes within the UK market.

Helen Goodman: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) is not in her place to ask this question herself. Last week, she withdrew her amendment asking the Government to publish their papers on the impact of no deal. Will the Government still hold to their promise, even though she has defected from the Tory party?

Mel Stride: The analysis that the hon. Lady refers to is contained in the cross-Government analysis that we are discussing as part of this urgent question.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As the Treasury’s forecasts before the referendum were woefully inaccurate, and the Office for Budget Responsibility was set up specifically to stop politicised reports coming out, would it not be better to consult a newspaper horoscope than Treasury forecasts?

Mel Stride: I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, ingenious and amusing though his question is, but I should point out just one fallacy in the premise of his question: these are not forecasts.

Ian Paisley Jnr: In the search for a withdrawal agreement that we can all support, can the Minister now confirm that the draft proposals have been put forward to Europe that would make a legally binding textual change to the withdrawal agreement?

Mel Stride: We have made it clear that our ambition is to strike an amended deal with the European Union, so that we put beyond doubt the issue of how permanent or otherwise the backstop arrangements might be. I am not in a position to comment on the specifics of the ongoing negotiations because I am not intimately involved with them.

Kirstene Hair: We know, of course, that the economic impact assessment on the Chequers deal showed that there would be no impact on growth in Scotland. However, does the Minister agree that nationalists have made it very clear that they will accept no deal that is put on the table, and—as I know, the Minister knows, my constituents know and businesses in Scotland know—this is all just to cause the ultimate chaos to pave the way for independence?

Mel Stride: The analysis shows that in all the scenarios being considered, including no deal, a deal based on the 2018 White Paper will give a better result for our economy for every sector, for every region and for every country—including Scotland—of the United Kingdom.

Mark Francois: As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union said, today is D minus 37, so in some five weeks from today we will have honoured the wishes of 17.4 million UK citizens and left the European Union. Military veterans living in Cyprus will also be affected by some of these changes, not least because we recently signed a double taxation treaty with the Cypriot Government. The Minister personally intervened in that negotiation, to allow a five-year transition period for military veterans receiving state pensions to have longer to adjust. He played a blinder and honoured the covenant, and on their behalf I thank him today for everything he did to look after them.

Mel Stride: I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for his extremely kind words. As ever, he is too modest. It was not my effort alone that secured the result that we achieved for those very important veterans in Cyprus—he raised the issue, brought it to my attention in Committee, and worked hard with me to make sure that we achieved the right, just and desired outcome.

Stephen Doughty: Of course, the economic effects are already being felt. I have spoken to businesses in my constituency  that have gone from profit to loss and others that have cut investment. This week I spoke to Cardiff University, which cited Brexit as a factor in the job losses that it has proposed. This is very serious, so does the Minister accept that we need to get serious? Ministers know that no deal would be a catastrophe. They know that every single Brexit would lead to a worse economic outcome for this country, so do they accept that the issue needs to go back to the people so that they can decide, based on the facts?

Mel Stride: If I may summarise, the hon. Gentleman makes the point that uncertainty is not good for business. He is entirely right, and that is all the more reason why we should get behind the deal, and get it sorted. We would then have an implementation period in which nothing would change until the end of 2020. The businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to which he referred could then begin to increase employment and invest with confidence.

Stephen Crabb: There are a great many voices in the international investor community that have made it clear that the underlying fundamentals of the British economy remain sound, but they warn that we are in a period in which investment decisions have been put on hold, and trade deals are in abeyance. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the single most important thing that we can do right now to unlock new investment in the economy is to pass the deal?

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend hits the nail firmly on the head. What we must do to move from uncertainty to a situation in which we can begin to concentrate on negotiating our future relationship with the European Union while everything remains stable and the same until the end of 2020 is to pass the deal as he suggests.

Jonathan Edwards: The fundamental problem with the British Government’s policy as it stands is that the deal offers certainty only for the duration of the transition period. Owing to the chaos in the Conservative party, is it not the case that all the deal does is move the cliff edge to the end of the transition phase?

Mel Stride: No, not at all. The deal would, first, resolve the three critical issues on which the withdrawal agreement focuses: the Northern Ireland-Ireland border; the situation as it relates to EU and UK citizens; and the financial arrangements that we will enter into as we leave the European Union. Critically, it would give us time to put into effect the political declaration, which is the other part of what has been negotiated, until the end of 2020.

Kevin Hollinrake: With the Scottish economy growing at half the rate of the rest of the United Kingdom, can my right hon. Friend offer any advice on economic growth to the Government north of the border?

Mel Stride: My advice, although I doubt very much that the Scottish National party will take much advice from me, is, first, get behind the deal and let us get certainty and increase investment; and secondly, accept  the result of the 2014 referendum, stay with the United Kingdom and do not end up in a situation that creates a border between the country of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Meg Hillier: In response to the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, the Minister said that it would be reckless of the Government not to plan for no deal. However, the detailed work of the Public Accounts Committee has clearly shown that the Government are not prepared for no deal and are woefully prepared for a deal. Would not the responsible thing be to delay any exit or extend the transition period and take stock, and make sure that the D-minus-37 uncertainty that is hanging over our country is resolved? It is too late just to pass the deal—uncertainty is now built in.

Mel Stride: I do not accept that we are not adequately prepared or are not deeply preparing for the possibility of no deal. This work has been going on for many months, and in far greater depth than many people appreciate. In my area of ministerial responsibility, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and borders, we have staffed up, and we have 4,500 more personnel ready for this work. There will be over 5,000 in place by 29 March. We have engaged with stakeholders across the piece by making sure that we have the most facilitated possible customs arrangements in place, particularly in respect of the short straits crossing—Dover and Calais—and so on. An immense amount of work has been carried out.

Kevin Foster: In considering the economic impact of the proposed deal, has the Minister reflected on the key drivers of economic performance and the policies that we decide domestically—on productivity, business structure and tax structure? We need only look at what the SNP is doing in Scotland to realise where we could go wrong.

Mel Stride: I will not be drawn into the Scottish National party again, but I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right—fundamentally, the way in which we manage the economy is one of the most important things that we do as a Government, which is why we have record levels of employment and the lowest level of unemployment since 1975. It is why we have halved youth unemployment since 2010, reduced the debt and have reduced the deficit by 80%, and it is why the economy is moving in the right direction.

Debbie Abrahams: As many of my hon. Friends have said, all credible economic analysis shows that a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous for the economy. The draft withdrawal agreement would be only slightly less disastrous for the economy. Given that the report published by the Resolution Foundation today predicts an increase in child poverty of 6% by 2023—that is equivalent to an additional 1 million children living in poverty since 2016—what are the Minister’s estimates of the additional effect on child poverty of no deal or the draft withdrawal agreement?

Mel Stride: Absolute poverty is at a record low. The Government have an enviable record of helping those who require work to get into work, and I have outlined  at length our success in that area. We have made sure that work pays with the benefit system and our roll-out of universal credit. Underpinning the hon. Lady’s question is a denial of the result of the 2016 referendum. The country made a decision to leave, and on that basis the decision has to be whether we have a sensible deal, as we have negotiated, or whether perhaps we end up with no deal, which I think the vast majority of Members in the House would not want to happen.

Stephen Kerr: My right hon. Friend knows, and the people of Scotland know, that the SNP Government, by their refusal to contemplate any form of withdrawal agreement whatsoever, are deliberately dragging Scotland to a no-deal situation—a crisis of their making—which they would use as a platform to demand independence. What possible excuse, to the best of my right hon. Friend’s knowledge, does the First Minister of Scotland have for not attending the Prime Minister’s Brexit cabinets?

Mel Stride: It is for the First Minister of Scotland to answer on the reasons why she attends functions and to deal with the points that my hon. Friend made. There is no doubt that this is a matter that affects the entire United Kingdom, including Scotland. I believe that the vast majority of us in the House wish to avoid a no-deal Brexit. The Scottish National party could play a pivotal role in helping us to do so by supporting the negotiated deal.

Marsha de Cordova: It is no secret that the Government’s deal will hit people’s livelihoods and jobs, along with economic growth. All credible economic analysis says that a no-deal Brexit would have a devastating effect. With just 37 days to go, does the Minister agree that we need to get serious and that we need to consider extending article 50?

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady urges us to get serious. We have been extremely serious in negotiating a deal with the European Union for a considerable amount of time, and we continue to engage in that endeavour. She is absolutely right to say that most of us in this House wish to avoid no deal, but the way to do that is by Opposition and Government Members uniting and making sure that we avoid no deal and have a good deal for our country.

Tom Brake: We know that the Government have done no economic impact analysis of the proposed deal, but has the Minister done an economic analysis of the failure of the Secretary of State for International Trade to secure the 40 roll-over trade deals the he promised would be signed one minute after 11 o’clock on 29 March?

Mel Stride: The right hon. Gentleman says that we have done no analysis of the deal, as he refers to it, but as he knows, the deal is actually the political declaration, which inherently will include a range of particular possible outcomes for that deal. That is modelled in the sensitivity analysis that we have brought forward to Parliament. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Mr Seely, sit down young man. It is very discourteous. The Father of the House comes in—[Interruption.] Order. Do not sit there looking at your phone, man. I am speaking to you. Show some respect and manners in the Chamber.

Bob Seely: rose—

John Bercow: No, I do not need the hon. Gentleman to get up. Remain seated and behave with courtesy. What on earth has got into you?

Chris Elmore: As the Minister will know, 23% of all the European funding that comes to the UK goes to Wales. He said that discussions on the shared prosperity fund would start before Christmas; I wonder whether he has played any part in that. Leave campaigners said that Wales would not be a penny worse off if we left the European Union, so will the Minister set out how the fund will work and who will make decisions to ensure that the Welsh economy does not tank if we are to have this botched Brexit deal?

Mel Stride: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will set out those details in due course.

Chris Elmore: Sod all!

John Bercow: Order.

Chris Elmore: I am sorry, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: It is not really a matter of order but very poor taste, and I expect somebody as culturally sophisticated as the hon. Gentleman to behave better than that.

Alison Thewliss: The Scotch Whisky Association recently reported that the value of Scotch whisky exports to Mexico last year was £131.5 million—which is up 18.5% on 2017—and that Mexico is the fourth largest export market by volume for Scotch whisky. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has confirmed by letter to the Procedure Committee that the Government
“do not…expect to replicate the existing Mexico spirits agreement in time for 29 March”.
What assessment has the Financial Secretary made of the impact that will have on geographic indicators for Scotch whisky and on the wider Scottish economy?

Mel Stride: This Government totally understand and get the significant importance—not just to Scotland but to the entire United Kingdom—of Scotch whisky exports, which account for some 20% of all exports of food and drink from our country. That was also signalled in our recent Budget, which once again froze duty on Scotch whisky. The hon. Lady can rest assured that we will make sure that we do the right thing by Scotland’s most important export.

Stephen Timms: The Department’s assessment is that any form of Brexit will leave us worse off than if we stayed in the European Union. Will the Minister simply confirm that that is his Department’s view?

Mel Stride: The analysis, quite rightly, does not assess staying in the European Union, and there is an obvious reason for that, which is that in June 2016 the country took the decision—17.4 million people voted—to leave the European Union, and that is an outcome that this Government will respect.

Louise Haigh: Will Operation Stack have to be replicated across all major ports in the event of no deal?

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady can rest assured that an extensive amount of contingency planning has gone on, and will continue to go on, in terms of the arrangements that we may have to bring into force at our ports to make sure that goods keep flowing.

Alan Brown: We have heard the usual nonsense of “SNP bad” from Conservative Members because we do not support this Government’s so-called deal. If the deal is so good, why are the UK Government not brave enough to take control and publish evidence on the financial impact? Has the Minister seen the Bank of England analysis that his deal will raise unemployment by 4% and inflation by 2%? If the UK Government do not agree with that analysis, why do they not disprove it by publishing their own evidence?

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman says that we have not had the courage to produce an analysis of the deal, as he terms it, but we have done precisely that, as was required by this House, with a range of potential landing points for the deal set out in broad terms in the future political declaration. The Government have done just that.

Geraint Davies: The Father of the House knows better than others that Margaret Thatcher was instrumental in creating the single market and in encouraging Japanese companies to come here to platform into it. Given that the EU now has a free trade agreement with Japan and the Government intend to Brexit, is not the loss of Japanese investment and associated jobs painfully predictable? Is it not now incumbent on the Government to give business and the people, including Honda workers and others, the final say on whether this botched deal is really what they want, or whether they want to stay in the EU to secure future jobs?

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the trade deal with Japan has been struck at a time when we are members of the EU. There will be an impact on car producers, and we see that as part of the reason why Honda has taken its decision. The most important thing is that we enter into an arrangement with the EU where we minimise the frictions at our borders, have a free trade agreement with the EU27 and make sure that trade continues to flow. The best way to do that is to support the deal we are negotiating with the European Union.

Jeff Smith: The Government’s letter to Nissan promised that its ability to export to and from the EU would not be adversely affected by Brexit. How on earth can that possibly be reconciled with the Prime Minister’s red lines?

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a clear commitment to entering into a future trading relationship with the European Union based on the political declaration, which has at its heart a free trade area—tariff-free trade—and to making sure that we have the customs facilitations in place to ensure that that trade flows as freely as possible.

Marion Fellows: In spite of Conservative Members shouting, “SNP bad,” the UK Treasury analysis does not cover the PM’s deal; it covers no deal, a free trade agreement, the European economic area without a customs union and the Prime Minister’s failed Chequers plan. Does that mean that the Prime Minister plans to ditch her plan for one of those or to proceed without knowing the consequences?

Mel Stride: The analysis needs to model the future political declaration, upon which the negotiations will rest. Of course, that is a relatively broad document with a number of potential outcomes. The analysis has quite rightly taken a range of possible outcomes to make that assessment and most accurately reflect the range of outcomes of where the deal itself may land.

Deidre Brock: Unlike the EEA or single market model, the PM’s deal assumes that regulatory checks will be essential to the proper functioning of separate EU and UK markets. Does not the Minister agree that we need to understand the impact of such trade barriers now?

Mel Stride: That is precisely what the analysis is setting out—a series of potential outcomes and the economic impacts thereof. Some Members are suggesting that we should analyse where we are at the moment, but that would not be appropriate given that we are leaving the European Union. At the same time, it has to be recognised that we have not yet fully concluded the new trading relationship with the European Union—the EU27—and therefore the analysis sets out a range of possible landing points for those negotiations.

Patrick Grady: My sense is that the Minister is actually starting to admit that there is no analysis of the withdrawal agreement, so I just want to press him. The withdrawal agreement was laid before the House on 26 November, so on what specific date did the Government publish their specific economic analysis on that withdrawal agreement, and what title or Command Paper number should I ask for in the Vote Office or the Library to see the analysis?

Mel Stride: The analysis, as demanded by the House, sets out the different possible outcomes, including modelling a range of options between those contained in the White Paper of June last year and an FTA, as well as a point somewhere between the two of them, to allow an informed look at the likely impact of the various outcomes implicit in the future declaration. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is, of necessity, the way in which this analysis has to be conducted, given that we have a period during which we will be negotiating a precise exit arrangement with the European Union.

Kirsty Blackman: This is Schrödinger’s analysis—even the Minister does not know whether or not it exists at this moment in time. Will he answer a simple question: does he believe that the UK would be better off if it were to leave the EU with the Prime Minister’s deal or if it were to stay in the EU?

Mel Stride: I have been asked this question a couple of times, and the reality is that it is entirely hypothetical. To end up staying within the European Union would be to fly in the face of the result of the June 2016 referendum  —the referendum had a higher turnout than any other electoral event in our country’s history—and this Government are going to respect the outcome of that referendum.

Drew Hendry: This urgent question was aimed at the Prime Minister, so I can only assume that the Minister is undergoing an audition as the future leader of the Conservative party. On that basis, if he were Prime Minister, would he take cognisance of the analysis published by the London School of Economics that shows a 5.5% hit on GDP due to the incumbent’s plan, or would he, like her, simply ignore it?

Mel Stride: What we must do is to make sure that we conclude a good deal for our country; what we must do is to make sure that we avoid a no-deal scenario; and what we must do is to make sure that we respect the result of the June 2016 referendum. That is the mission of this country and of this Government. We are negotiating the final elements of that, and as, I hope, the Prime Minister comes back with changes to that deal in relation to the backstop, if we are to do the right thing and the best thing for the whole United Kingdom, we should support it.

Stewart McDonald: I am stunningly impressed by the Minister’s performance at the Dispatch Box. We can tell a big Downing Street lollipop is on its way when that intellectual heavyweight, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), has nodded in agreement with everything the Minister has said for the last three quarters of an hour.
Let me ask the Minister this: the deal ends freedom of movement—one of the reasons why I will not support it—but where can I find the economic analysis of the impact of ending freedom of movement on Scotland and on the city of Glasgow? Following his answer to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), will the Minister also tell me, as well as the discussions he has had with HMRC, whether Revenue Scotland has been consulted?

Mel Stride: On the impact of immigration, if the hon. Gentleman looks closely at the analysis, he will see that the various scenarios I have outlined during this urgent question are analysed both in terms of the current free movement arrangements and in terms of more restrictive arrangements that would be expected to follow on from the further negotiations we will have with the European Union.
May I just make one very important point on immigration? There will have been a multitude of reasons why 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union in 2016. There is little doubt in my mind that immigration was one of them, and it is absolutely vital that this Government stick, as we will, to our commitment to ensure that we put an end to free movement and gain control of our borders.

Stewart McDonald: There’s a big lollipop coming your way.

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Gentleman continues to chunter from a sedentary position about the merits or otherwise of lollipops, but when his appetite has been satisfied, and perhaps even if it has not been, we will move to the next urgent question.

DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP STATUS

Edward Davey: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on his use of the power to deprive a person of citizenship status.

Sajid Javid: To keep this country safe, we must be prepared to make tough decisions. As I told the House on Monday, there must be consequences for those who back terror. More than 900 people travelled from the UK to engage with the conflict in Syria and Iraq, At least 20% have been killed in the region. About 40% have returned. They have all been investigated, and I can reassure this House that the majority have been assessed to pose no or a low security risk.
Those who stayed include some of the most dangerous, including many who supported terrorism, not least those who chose to fight or to raise families in the so-called caliphate. They turned their back on this country to support a group that butchered and beheaded innocent civilians, including British citizens; tied the arms of homosexuals and threw them off the top of buildings; and raped countless young girls, boys and women.
I have been resolute that, where those people pose any threat to this country, I will do everything in my power to prevent their return. This includes stripping dangerous individuals of their British citizenship. This power is used only in extreme circumstances, where conducive to the public good. Since 2010, it has been used about 150 times for people linked to terrorism or serious crimes.
We of course follow international law. An individual can be deprived of British citizenship only where it will not leave that individual stateless, where they are a dual national or, in some limited circumstances, where they have the right to citizenship elsewhere.
It would not be right to comment on any individual case, but I can say that each one is carefully considered on its own merits, regardless of gender, age or family status. Children should not suffer, so if a parent does lose their British citizenship, that does not affect the rights of their child.
Deprivation is a powerful tool that can be used only to keep the most dangerous individuals out of this country, and we do not use it lightly. However, when someone turns their back on fundamental values and supports terror, they do not have an automatic right to return to the UK. We must put the safety and the security of our country first, and I will not hesitate to act to protect it.

Edward Davey: I thank the Home Secretary for his reply. On the legal grounds to remove citizenship because it would be
“conducive to the public good”,
can he set out the criteria he must use to make such judgments on the public good?
As the Home Secretary knows, the law prevents him from making someone who is British by birth stateless. In November, the Home Secretary lost a case before the  Special Immigration Appeals Commission on a similar decision made by his predecessor to strip two terror suspects of their British citizenship. Then, as now, the Home Office contended that the two had Bangladeshi citizenship by descent, but the court ruled that that was not the case and that stripping them of British citizenship was therefore unlawful. Will the Home Secretary tell the House what changes have been made to the decision-making process since that case to give him confidence that he is acting lawfully now?
In removing British citizenship, the Home Secretary is essentially saying, “She’s somebody else’s problem,” but in the words of the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne:
“Which other country is supposed to look after her on our behalf?… Can you imagine the fury here if we took a French or Italian citizen who joined Islamic State?”
Surely a British citizen, born in Britain, is a British responsibility. The Home Secretary mentioned national security in his answer. Can he explain what evidence he used to conclude that this 19-year-old mother and her new-born baby would be a threat to national security? Will he confirm that the evidence required to prosecute Ms Begum for supporting terrorism is readily available from the media? Will he explain why he is so unwilling to bring her to justice?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House what he expects to happen to Ms Begum’s new-born baby boy? This child is an innocent British citizen, and we have a clear responsibility to ensure his wellbeing. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to uphold that important responsibility?

Sajid Javid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, which I want to go through. But let me say to him and the House that these decisions are never taken lightly, and I am not just speaking for myself.
The power has been in place for more than 100 years. It was set out properly in the British Nationality Act 1981, since when it has been used by successive Home Secretaries. Although I will not know every decision that every Home Secretary made in the past, I can be certain that none would have taken decisions on deprivation of British citizenship lightly. There are a number of things to weigh up: national security, moral issues and legal issues all need to be carefully taken into account. No decision of this type—as serious as this—can be taken lightly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the grounds for a citizenship decision. As I have said, I cannot talk about an individual case, although I am happy to try to answer his questions. Almost all these decisions, depending on how far back one goes, are made on what is called the “conducive test”: conducive to the public good. The test can apply to a number of issues—to the case prominent in the papers now, but also to many recent cases, including the ones that he mentioned, to do with terrorism and national security. In each of those cases, I would look at the evidence put in front of me: some of that would be secret intelligence and some would be more publicly available information. That would be used to determine the threat that the individual might pose to the country. Alongside that, officials from the Home Office, working with other partners and partner agencies, would put together a case, including a legal case, to look at a number of issues but of course  absolutely to make sure that if we went ahead and took the decision to deprive someone of their British nationality, that person would not be left stateless.
In every decision that I am aware of—I cannot think that any of my predecessors would have taken a different decision—that has been applied, every single time. Our lawyers are expert in this field and would look carefully at judgments in previous cases—the right hon. Gentleman referred to those—if they have been challenged, to see whether there are lessons to be learned. Those would be taken into account. When a decision then has to be made, I have to be, in every case, absolutely confident that it is not only conducive to the public good, but legally proper and correct, and compliant with both international and any relevant domestic law.
The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that Lord Carlile, an individual whom he will know well, has already made a public comment—I can refer to public comment—about the case in the press at the moment and other such cases that he has been familiar with. He is worth listening to on how this practice has taken place in the past.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about minors. Again, I cannot talk about any particular individual or case, but in the case of a minor, clearly even more care must absolutely be taken. It is absolutely paramount in all cases to take into account the welfare of minors. I cannot refer to any particular case, but that is also in domestic legislation: in any immigration decision, including about deprivation, the welfare of a child is taken into account where that is relevant.
Finally, I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that he was a senior member of the previous Government. He was not only in the Cabinet: for almost three years, if I remember correctly, he was a member of the National Security Council. He would have discussed counter-terrorism issues in that council on countless occasions, and it would be hard to think that the issue of deprivation never came up. Not only was he a member of a Government who made decisions on deprivation, many on terrorism grounds, but he even voted for the Immigration Act 2014, which extended the powers of deprivation. Now he stands here pretending that he knows nothing of that and trying to play politics with such an important issue. He should reflect on that.

Kenneth Clarke: When I was Home Secretary, I did not deprive anyone of their citizenship, and although the power is necessary, it is being used with ever increasing frequency. Every patriotic British citizen has to accept that we have fellow citizens who are extremely unpleasant and have very unpleasant and dangerous ideas. We deal with them through the rule of law—international law and domestic law. Some people are mass murderers, but we have given up transportation or exile as a response to such cases.
As this woman is only one, but several hundred have already come back and hundreds of various western nationalities are now stranded in Syria, is it not right that we should begin at least from the position that we should accept back the people who are obviously British, by every ordinary test of the word, and that others have to accept back everybody who is obviously a national of their state? Somehow leaving these people to disperse through Syria seems to me quite a serious threat to future security. We can use the full force of the criminal law  —we must—and the full resources of the intelligence services once these people have got back here. That is how my right hon. Friend is going to be able to protect the British public.

Sajid Javid: First, I should say that I always listen carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend, who is very distinguished in the House and served as a distinguished Home Secretary as well as in many other positions of responsibility. As usual, he has made an important point. All I would say is that each case should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. That is exactly what happens in the Home Office: I look at each case very carefully against what tools are available that will help protect our national security and citizens here at home and in regard to what can be done to help bring people to justice.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to point out that many hundreds of people from the UK—more than 900, we believe—have gone in recent years to Iraq or Syria to join terrorist organisations. There are many more from other European countries and countries such as the US and Australia. We work closely with our allies. I hope he welcomes the fact that we are trying to work even more closely with them following the recent news that Daesh is being defeated in the region, in the expectation that more people may want to come back to the UK or other European countries. We must work with our allies and see how we can co-ordinate and have a more unified approach.

Diane Abbott: On the general question of returning foreign fighters and ISIS supporters, the President of the United States said:
“The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial.”
Does the Home Secretary accept that what the security services have been calling for is a very specialised programme of questioning, interrogation, de-radicalisation and quite possibly putting these people on trial, fashioned for this group of foreign fighters and their supporters? What is not helpful is to strip them of their nationality, which on the face of what he has said appears to be on a wholly arbitrary basis.
On the particular issue of Shamima Begum, there is no question but that she has said some very reprehensible things in the media, particularly about the Manchester bombings. However, the Home Secretary knows that the Home Office lost two cases where it attempted to strip people of their nationality on the basis of Bangladeshi nationality by descent, so why is he going forward with the same strategy now? Let me remind the Home Secretary of article 15 of the universal declaration of human rights:
“(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality”.
Can the Home Secretary explain how his actions are not in breach of the articles of the declaration?

Sajid Javid: I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. She will know—I have said this at the Dispatch Box before—that we estimate about 900 people of national security interest left the UK at some point to join terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. We estimate that about 40% have returned and approximately 20% have  died in the region. Of those who have returned, in every case we know of they have been investigated. Where there is enough evidence, they have been prosecuted for their actions.
The right hon. Lady will also understand that the part of the world they are in is a very lawless and dangerous place, so it is not always possible—in fact, it is incredibly difficult—to gather evidence of their activities that could be used to try to have a successful prosecution, either in the UK or in the other countries with which we work closely. If we have evidence, we can help to bring about prosecutions either at home or with our allies. In each case, we work carefully with them. It is always the case that the preferred outcome is always one of justice, where there is evidence and we can be sure that there can be proper legal proceedings and proper hearings. Our preference in many of cases is to see if more people can be tried in the region. As I mentioned earlier to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), we are working with a number of other countries to see if more work can be done together. Sadly, this challenge is not unique to the UK but is shared across many countries including our European friends.
The right hon. Lady referred to other cases, as did the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). She knows that at any time any decision made by any Minister can rightfully be challenged by anyone in court. That is their right. But it would be wrong to take one particular case that may have been in the courts and apply it to all other potential cases that follow. It is worth repeating that where legal cases may have an impact, our own legal advisers, who are incredibly experienced and take these issues very seriously, would of course take them into account.
The right hon. Lady referred to the UN declaration of human rights. We absolutely abide by that and it is incredibly important that all Governments abide by it. She quoted the declaration by saying that no one should be made stateless. That is absolutely correct. No one should ever be made stateless and that is not something we would ever do. We would never take a deprivation decision if someone, as a British national, has only one nationality. We would not do that. We would not leave anyone stateless. She also suggested that these decisions are somehow arbitrary. As I said to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), each decision is taken incredibly seriously. The facts are weighed on a case-by-case basis. It is anything but arbitrary.

Julian Lewis: May I draw the attention of the Home Secretary and the House to an important article just published online in The Independent by the self-described liberal journalist Ahmed Aboudouh, who says that Egypt paid a terrible price in taking back jihadists who begged to be allowed home after the Afghan and Chechen campaigns? He points out that in November 1997, 58 western tourists were slaughtered in Luxor by returned jihadists who only a year earlier had been begging to come back. Clearly, there is a danger in letting radicalised people come back. However, given that not everyone can have their citizenship withdrawn and not everyone who has been out there can be successfully prosecuted because of the lack of evidence of what goes  on in a place like that, does the solution not have to be a change in the law so that the act of giving support, aid and comfort to terrorist groups is itself a prosecutable offence?

Sajid Javid: I thank my right hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to that case in Egypt and for his question. He outlines that in cases—again, I am not talking about any particular case—where the only opportunity to keep out a dangerous individual is through deprivation, thereby preventing re-entry into the UK, then any Home Secretary would weigh that option very carefully. Ultimately, my No. 1 responsibility is to do everything I can to keep everyone who lives in Britain safe. The last thing anyone would want to see—he cited the example of Egypt—is a situation where someone returns who could not be kept out and goes on to kill, murder and destroy lives. The duty to keep their constituents safe should be paramount in the mind of every hon. Member. That is why the House has supported successive Acts of Parliament that allow deprivation. As I said, the Immigration Act 2014—not that long ago—actually extended powers of deprivation. That was the will of the House. My right hon. Friend referred to changes in the law. I know he welcomes the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, which became an Act just last week. That also gives the Government further powers to prosecute terrorists.

Joanna Cherry: Let there be no question: everyone in this House deplores Daesh and this young woman’s choices in going to join them, and of course there are security issues that must be addressed. However, the young woman we are talking about is British. She was radicalised in Britain. Daesh is a worldwide phenomenon, but she is our problem. Why is the Home Secretary not bringing her home to put her on trial here to be judged by a jury of her peers? Apart from anything else, she may have valuable intelligence and insights into how she was radicalised. Why is he washing his hands of this problem? He cited what Lord Carlile had to say, but if he, like me, was listening to the “Today” programme this morning, he will have heard Baron Anderson of Ipswich, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation from 2011 to 2017, suggest that we ought to be dealing with our own problems here.
I respectfully say that there is nothing that the Father of the House said with which I would disagree. The rule of law is fundamental to our democracy and if the Home Secretary thinks he can overlook the results of previous decisions, I would very gently suggest to him that he might want to seek a lecture about the doctrine of precedent from the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is sitting beside him on the Treasury Bench. Unless this young woman holds dual citizenship, he may be found to have acted in breach of UK and international law by rendering her stateless. My question is this: is that a risk he is willing to take? Is he more interested in playing to the populist gallery than respecting the rule of law?

Sajid Javid: Let me say a couple of things to the hon. and learned Lady; again, I cannot talk about an individual case, but I will try to answer her questions. Every decision on deprivation—I think I speak for all former Home Secretaries who, under successive Governments, have made decisions on deprivation—are weighed up very carefully. The Government and officials in the  Government—these decisions have been made over a number of years under successive Governments—will be looking at legal cases individually, on a case-by-case basis. Of course, that would take into account any judgments in court that may be relevant. I am not proclaiming to be an expert on the law in this matter, and a decision like this would not be taken—certainly not by me—without my officials, who are the experts in the law. I know that the hon. and learned Lady is a distinguished lawyer, but I do not think that she is an expert on this particular issue, and it is important to listen to experts on this.
I also gently say to the hon. and learned Lady that it was in July, not that long ago, when another case was considered in an urgent question—the Kotey/Elsheikh case, again, related to foreign fighters—and in a similar way to now, she accused the Government of “departing from” Government policy. That was her language at the time. She went on to talk about how we were ignoring
“our long-standing policy on the death penalty”.—[Official Report, 23 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 728.]
That was her accusation at the time. She will know that many months later, that case was looked at by the courts, quite properly—as is their job—and they ruled in the Government’s favour on all five counts, so if anyone is trying to play politics with this judgment, I think it is the hon. and learned Lady.

Joanna Cherry: Disgraceful. Ad hominem remarks with no basis whatsoever.

John Bercow: Order. Criticism by one right hon. or hon. Member of another is not a novel phenomenon. I have heard what the hon. and learned Lady said, but she has other colleagues who can pursue these matters in questioning and I am sure that she will take that opportunity. It would not be right for me to intercede at this point, other than to request that the House hears from Sir Desmond Swayne.

Desmond Swayne: The Home Secretary’s power to deprive is open to challenge and, in most cases, will not exist at all. I urge him once again to arm himself with powers of Executive detention so that people can be sufficiently quarantined before they are allowed back.

Sajid Javid: In cases where terrorists or suspected terrorists are returning to the UK, a number of powers are available, including, for example, temporary exclusion orders, which have been used and can place a number of restrictions on someone, including the port of entry and reporting requirements, as well as other restrictions. We would always look first at what existing powers we can use, and if we feel that they are not sufficient, we would always look at what more might need to be brought to the House.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary is right to want to prosecute anyone who has been involved in terrorist activity here or abroad and we should support him in doing so. However, on the citizenship issue, he said that he will never make anyone stateless, but it appears in this case that he is relying legally on this young woman’s potential right to citizenship in the Netherlands or Bangladesh and presumably on the expectation that one of those countries will accept her, even though she has not lived there and was radicalised here. Does that mean that he  accepts that the same principle would apply to other people who might be citizens of Bangladesh or the Netherlands, who might either have potential citizenship in the UK or actual dual citizenship rights, and that if those countries removed their citizenship first—even though this was somebody who had committed crimes in that country who had never lived here—we would somehow be expected to accept those citizens?

Sajid Javid: I understand why the right hon. Lady referred to a particular case and I will not comment on that, but on her broader question, it is worth reminding the House that every time such a decision is made, it is done on a case-by-case basis. By definition, each case is going to have a different set of facts—sometimes completely different—and we will take all those into account. In every single situation, there is no question of making anyone stateless under any circumstances. Not only would making someone stateless be unlawful, it would be morally wrong, and that is not something that we would do. In any case, and certainly with any decision that I have made, I am perfectly comfortable that the analysis is done properly by expert legal advisers. I would not make such a decision unless I was absolutely confident on the statelessness issue.
The right hon. Lady also referred to citizenship of other countries and how that may or may not work. She will know, as the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, that the citizenship rules can be very complex. They are complex in our country and have similar complexity in many other countries. However, we make sure that we work with lawyers, sometimes including foreign lawyers, if necessary, to make sure that our interpretation of how citizenship laws work is correct.

Bob Seely: As somebody who served in the ISIS campaign, I am very aware of the difficulty of extraditing and prosecuting returning UK ISIS fighters. Does the Home Secretary agree that the priority is monitoring those 400-plus fighters who are back in the UK? Is he aware of how many of them were actually fighters? How many of those people are likely to be prosecuted, and if he cannot supply the information now, would he be able to give it to me or the House in some form at a later date? Does he agree now that there is also a case for an updated and renewed treason Bill or Act to cope with these sorts of incidents in future?

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his question. As I mentioned a moment ago, we estimate that of the 900 or so people who left the UK to join terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, approximately 40% have returned. He asks how many have been prosecuted. Each one is investigated—that does not necessarily lead to a prosecution, but anyone who returns should absolutely expect to be questioned and investigated, and prosecuted where possible. I believe that around 40 have been successfully prosecuted. Some have received very significant sentences. I am aware of at least one case in which I believe a sentence of more than 10 years on terrorism-related charges was given by the courts. I will also see whether I can provide any more information to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Kate Green: As the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), noted, in Greater Manchester we have  particular reason to find the conduct and utterances of Ms Begum abhorrent. We also want to understand why and how she apparently became radicalised in this country, as indeed, have young people from my constituency who have also tragically gone to Syria to fight with the jihadis. How can the Home Secretary assure us that we are taking every possible step to understand how that home-grown radicalisation occurs and what we can do to prevent it in future if we are not able to bring back our own citizens and interrogate, investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute them?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady raises a really important point. We have been talking about cases that hon. Members have raised in the House involving people who sadly went on to join terrorist organisations, but how we prevent that from happening in the first place is just as important.
The hon. Lady will know that intensive work is being done across Departments, including through programmes led by the Home Office. We are doing our best. There are many people, especially young people, who seem vulnerable and are preyed upon by extremists. The first thing is to find out who they are—that is what we try to do with the Prevent programme, particularly through the Prevent duty—and then to develop bespoke programmes working around those individuals. Each case will be different. In the most intense cases, people move into the Channel programme. Last year, 7,000 people were referred to Prevent and of them about 400 went into the Channel programme. Many of those referrals were to do with Islamist terrorism, but almost half of the Channel referrals last year were to do with right-wing terrorism and extremism. We want to fight all types of extremism, and we work throughout the country, including in Greater Manchester, to do so. Just a few months ago, I went to Bethnal Green and looked carefully at the programme there, and I am very happy with what I have seen so far.

Matthew Offord: This country is admired around the world for its sense of decency, fair play and the rule of law, which is why I am concerned about this case. I realise the Home Secretary cannot talk about this specific case, but can he tell us how many other people have had their nationality withdrawn, be it British or dual?

Sajid Javid: It is worth pointing out again—it cannot be said often enough—that nationality will be withdrawn only where the Home Secretary is satisfied that it is conducive to the public good and that such action will not leave the individual stateless. As I said at the start of the urgent question, this power has been used more than 150 times since 2010. I do not have the number for before 2010, but it was used by successive Home Secretaries under successive Governments prior to 2010.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am sure that many of us recall the attack in Manchester, and I am sure I speak for everyone in saying that security in relation to such attacks is a priority. That goes without saying. That said, how can the Home Secretary defend the dangerous concept of what is now in effect a two-tier citizenship system and invoke the  name of national security in doing so? Surely—I am thinking how people might perceive this outside—this plays to the sense of injustice and the brainwashing narrative of those seeking to radicalise young people in communities across the United Kingdom. How does he anticipate remedying the underlying causes of radicalisation when he opts to act unilaterally instead of making use of a rigorous justice system? It is through justice that we achieve what we want, which is a sense of fairness in society, and if we are unfair in society, he loses the moral high ground. I beg him to consider how he uses justice to best effect.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady lays down a fair challenge in asking that in such cases we—whether me or Ministers more generally—think very carefully about fairness and the impact of our decisions. I understand why she raised the issue of people who would look for excuses to try to radicalise populations and communities. That should weigh heavily in any decision on deprivation as against the Government’s responsibility to keep their citizens safe. It is worth keeping something else in mind. Let us imagine a hypothetical case where there is the possibility to keep a terrorist out of the country, but the Home Secretary decides not to, for some reason, and that that individual returns, continues to preach extremism and radicalise others, and potentially even carries out terrorist attacks. It is worth thinking about the impact of that on communities and how it could radicalise people.

Henry Smith: Earlier today, several Labour MPs said that removing British citizenship from dual nationals accused of terror offences and acts against the British state could harm dual nationals residing abroad who get themselves into serious trouble. Is it not the case that, typically, countries deport back to this country British citizens convicted of serious crimes in those countries?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend asks me about deportations. In the case of deportations from the UK, we are talking about individuals who, for one reason or another, if they have broken laws, we would seek to deport. The best example in the UK is probably the deportation of serious foreign national offenders once they have served their sentence in a British prison. We take a case-by-case approach, but where appropriate we would look to deport. As he pointed out, many countries seek to deport back to the UK British citizens abroad who have committed offences once they have completed their sentence.

Khalid Mahmood: I have been tackling radicalisation and terrorism since 9/11. What sets us apart from those radicalisers and terrorists and their barbaric ideology is the rule of law. We need to tackle them with the rule of law, not kneejerk reactions to tabloid headlines. The Government could have done something about this in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, but there is no mention of it in that Act. You have the terrorism prevention and investigation measures. How many of the people you are looking at in terms of radicalisation are currently on a TPIM? You have no records of people—

John Bercow: Order. I am not looking at anything. I have no record of anything. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that debate  goes through the Chair. He should not say “you” because “you” does not refer to the Minister; it refers to me, and I am an innocent in this matter.

Khalid Mahmood: My apologies, Mr Speaker.
The Home Secretary has no idea what is going on with TPIMs. How many people who have been radicalised are having no action taken against them in relation to their capability to strike terrorism and radicalisation in this country? Will he give me some figures on TPIMs, and what control does he have over those?

Sajid Javid: I have seen for myself some of the work the hon. Gentleman has done, particularly in the west midlands, to help with deradicalisation, and I commend him for it. It is important that he and others continue such work and continue working with local authorities and other partners in doing so.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about deprivations generally and talked about the rule of law. Of course we operate according to the law, as does any Government, and that law is set by this House. I referred earlier to the British Nationality Act 1981 and the Immigration Act 2014. Both talk about deprivation. The 2014 Act extended the provisions for how deprivations can be done. He was a Member of the House in 2014. I am not suggesting he voted for the Act—I do not know; the point is it was debated and is now the law. This is the rule of law. As well as that, we are signed up, quite rightly, to a number of international conventions that we care deeply about. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned the UN universal declaration of human rights. There is also the convention on the rights of the child, which is relevant in some cases. Those are all hugely important, and we absolutely abide by them.
I cannot stress enough that we would not make a decision that had not been looked at carefully by Government lawyers—experienced lawyers who have worked for many Governments—and which we did not feel to be absolutely lawful. I do not pretend for a second that Governments do not get decisions wrong and that decision are not sometimes declared unlawful if challenged—that has happened under many Governments, and when it does happen, Governments have to listen—but we strive every time to make a completely lawful decision. We have in the past published transparency reports in the House on deprivations—the last one, which was published in May, I think, gives year-by-year numbers—and we will continue to be transparent. The hon. Gentleman also asked about TPIMs. I do not have the exact numbers, but I will write to him.

Craig Mackinlay: In fighting Daesh, we faced a new phenomenon. People through their own actions decided to join and embrace a new foul and warped state. It was a matter for them to choose. May I therefore commend my right hon. Friend for the bold action he has taken, which I am sure is supported across the country? Will he reassure me that our position on these difficult issues will be rooted in British values and proper judicial processes?

Sajid Javid: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. He is right to talk about the threat from Daesh. It is not the first and will not be the last terrorist organisation that we have to confront, but the number  of people who left Britain to join that vile terrorist organisation, and to commit the most horrific crimes either themselves or by supporting what it wanted to achieve, was unprecedented. I do not think that any country that has faced a similar problem—citizens leaving to join such organisations—has a perfect answer to deal with it, which is why it is important that we work with other countries, which we will do. I assure my hon. Friend absolutely that we must always uphold our values. As I said in answer to the previous question, we must ensure every single time that we act properly and at all times within the law.

Chi Onwurah: The actions and words of Shamima Begum are reprehensible and almost undoubtedly illegal, but we are not to know because the Secretary of State has rejected due process and the law that it is his duty to uphold, and has instead chosen to treat British citizenship as a privilege accorded to those with whom he agrees. He is also abandoning our responsibility to pursue and prevent terrorists made in Britain, and in the process ceding the moral high ground to President Trump. Do the Secretary of State’s actions do justice to Britain or to his political ambitions?

Sajid Javid: I have had some dealings with the hon. Lady in the past. She is a wonderful woman, and she is a lot better than that question. Perhaps it is a Whip’s handout—that is not her. Much of her question has already been answered in this urgent question, but I am happy to say it again. We must ensure that at all times we are fair, that we are acting morally and also lawfully. As I have said, such important a decisions cannot be taken lightly. The facts must be weighed very carefully, and decision taken only when all alternatives have properly been taken into account.

Huw Merriman: The Home Secretary has an incredibly difficult job. The interests of the public in this country are paramount and he must keep them safe. We have a fine tradition in this country of not exporting our problems around the world, but of trying to solve problems around the world. Does he consider that we have sufficient powers to ensure that people coming from abroad who may pose a risk are contained? If so, does he also consider that it may be worse for humankind if individuals with problems are exported to parts of the world where there are not such safe containment laws as ours?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend asks whether we have sufficient powers. It is right that we keep our powers under review at all times. If we feel that things need to change, and if that change can be brought about, we would bring it to the House, as we did very recently with the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
It is worth saying that no matter what powers we have, any prosecution would require sufficient evidence because of our absolute commitment to due process. That is incredibly difficult when people have gone abroad, joined terrorist organisations and carried out the most horrific attacks. It can be incredibly difficult to achieve justice by obtaining evidence that we can present in a court of law under whatever power we have. That is why, as Home Secretary, I must look carefully at all the powers at my disposal. In some cases—and only in some cases—when it is deemed that the best way to keep  this country safe is through deprivation of citizenship for someone who has more than one nationality, that should be taken as a serious option.

Tom Brake: May I bring the Home Secretary back to the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is no longer in her place? He referred to the Prevent programme. It clearly does very valuable work, but, as far as I am aware, it is a UK-based programme, so the question remains: in what way can he find out why or how a young woman was radicalised when she was a child if she is in a camp in Syria? What assessment has he made of the risks of a large number of people remaining in a camp in Syria and developing networks there that provide us with a risk here at home?

Sajid Javid: The right hon. Gentleman rightly brings to the attention of the House the fact that these are tough decisions that have to be made after weighing a number of factors. I will not refer to an individual case, but he talks about people in camps abroad who are members of terrorist organisations. We might have limited evidence of what they have done as members of those organisations, but we know that they have joined. I hope he accepts that there are risks of their staying in the region and of returning to the UK—there are risks both ways, which is why each case should be looked at individually and judged on its own facts. I do not pretend for a second that these are easy decisions. Any Home Secretary must take all factors into account and everything should be balanced out, but ultimately it is my responsibility to keep our citizens safe. That must be paramount in my mind when making decisions.

James Cartlidge: I strongly welcome the action taken by the Home Secretary. There has been a lot of use of the word “arbitrary”, but surely the key point is that the young lady chose voluntarily to go out and join and live among a terrible regime that has behaved in a barbaric fashion. Has he reflected on whether she wants to come back because she has regret and feels remorse, or whether she wants to come back because the caliphate is being defeated? My constituents would ask why someone can choose to go and join an organisation while it destroys, but be welcomed back as if nothing has changed once it finds its downfall.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend will understand if I do not talk about a particular case. As I said earlier from the Dispatch Box, we believe that more than 900 people have gone to Syria and Iraq to join terrorist organisations, many of whom have promoted that fact. As I said a moment ago, it is hard to gather evidence on what they may or may not have done, but we know the cause with which they have aligned. We know what those terrorist organisations stand for, their objectives and the kind of things that they do.
It is worth recalling that Daesh is a lot weaker than it was even a year ago, but certainly a lot weaker than it was when many people went out and joined it two or three years ago. It is not surprising that those who are there and who seem to be being pushed out of the region want to come home. They might have that thought,   but we must know about each individual. It is our duty and our right to think carefully about the best interests of this country and how best to protect our citizens.

Marion Fellows: I have listened for the last while to many people from the Father of the House to honourable, right honourable, learned and gallant Members, and I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s responses to each and every one of them, but I still cannot get over the fact that the case that he will not refer to, as is proper, but that everyone else is referring to and the press are referring to, concerns a 15-year-old girl who was radicalised, went to Syria, has lost two children and is now a lactating mother—and she requires that her citizenship be rescinded? The Home Secretary keeps talking about security; can he explain to me in what regard she will affect the security of this country if she is allowed back in?

Sajid Javid: Again, I hope the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot talk about an individual case; I hope she recognises that. But if individuals have voluntarily left this country, joined a terrorist organisation and have for a number of years been supporting that terrorist organisation, it is self-evident that individual is a risk by dint of the fact that they have joined a terrorist organisation. As I said a moment ago, some of the acts of this organisation are there for us to see. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady can understand why such individuals could be a threat to this country if they returned, and that if I have a proper reason, based on the facts put in front of me in each case—this should be done on a case-by-case basis—that the best way to protect our national interest, and in particular the security of people living in the UK, is to exclude someone from re-entering the UK, that surely has to be the right decision.

Rehman Chishti: rose—

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: We have not got to points of order yet, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pose an inquiry, having consulted his scholarly cranium, he is welcome to do so.

John Hayes: I wanted to raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, but I am very happy to wait until you feel it is the right time to do so. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker: now or later?

John Bercow: No, no, what I was saying to the right hon. Gentleman, I thought clearly in terms that brooked no misunderstanding, especially by one of his perspicacious intelligence, was that now was not the time for a point of order, but if he wanted to put a question he could. If he wants to wait for his point of order, we will all wait with bated breath, beads of sweat on our brows and eager anticipation. Meanwhile I call Rehman Chishti.

Rehman Chishti: Having previously successfully pushed the Government to accept the correct terminology, Daesh, to defeat the idea, the ideology and the appeal that is sucking in hundreds of individuals from the UK to  Syria and Iraq to fight for this poisoned ideology and entity, may I ask the Home Secretary the following? Peter Neumann, one of the world’s best experts, based at King’s College London, has said the presumption must be for host countries to take back their foreign fighters. Unlike France, which is taking back 120 of its foreign fighters straight away in one lump, will the United Kingdom be looking at taking them back in a gradual way, for example taking back first those who assist the UK by giving evidence against those they have been fighting with and excluding them until they do that? Linked to that, on the issue of revoking the citizenship of individuals with dual citizenship rights, can the Secretary of State explain the following? Before the Government do that, do our Government speak to country x or y where these individuals may have originally come from to see if they will take them back? If not, they will become stateless, and that would not be what the Government want.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has now acquired the dubious distinction of being known in the House, I think for ever after, as among other things a cheeky chappie, as he somewhat abused my generosity in asking a question of that length. But never mind, he has done it now, and he can repent at leisure.

Sajid Javid: Each case is looked at individually, on a case-by-case basis. My hon. Friend mentioned France, and the UK and France have probably had the most people go from their countries to Syria or Iraq as foreign fighters, so we work closely with our French counterparts, and other European friends, on whether there can be a more co-ordinated approach to this challenge that we face. Cases involving individuals who may have the nationality of other countries as well are again dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As I have said, we would need to satisfy ourselves that they do genuinely have the nationality of another country before they can be deprived of their British nationality.

Points of Order

Craig Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I am saving the hon. Gentleman; it would be a pity to squander him at too early a stage of our proceedings. We will come to him in due course, but I think the House is in a state of great animation at the point of order that is going to be forthcoming from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).

John Hayes: On a much trailed and therefore much anticipated point of order, Mr Speaker. Last April, the Prime Minister announced a children’s funeral fund to give support and solace to those who have loved and lost. Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), I and others have raised this matter subsequently in this Chamber, nothing more has been heard. Have you had notice, Mr Speaker, of a statement from Ministers, and if you have not, what further steps might I take to ensure that this pledge is honest and honoured, because no one should break promises to the broken-hearted?

John Bercow: Indeed not, and the right hon. Gentleman expresses himself with his customary eloquence. The short answer is that a number of recourses are available to him. If he believes the matter warrants the urgent attention of the House, he could seek to use the mechanism that would secure, with my agreement, the presence of a Minister in the Chamber to answer his question on the matter; the earliest he could possibly do that would be tomorrow, and it is open to him to do that. Alternatively, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman will take his customary seat in the Chamber for his usual participation in the business question tomorrow morning. We have become accustomed over a substantial period to hearing the eloquent and often very poetic inquiries from the right hon. Gentleman, often infused with some philosophical reflections and even references to his favourite authors as well, and that is a treat that I think might lie in store for the House.

Craig Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition chose to mention my constituency of South Thanet, whereupon graciously, Sir, you allowed me the very last PMQ. I will quote what the right hon. Gentleman said:
“The Secretary of State’s decision to award the contract to Seaborne has increased the budget deficit of Thanet Council, the owners of Ramsgate port, by nearly £2 million.”—[Official Report, 13 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 877.]
That figure was clearly incorrect, as in a period of just 51 days that would amount on an annualised basis to £14.6 million, which represents some 70% to 80% of the entire revenue of the council.
As a courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, I alerted him to my concern that he might have misled the House, and I did that within an hour of him making that statement. I also alerted you, Mr Speaker, to my concerns on this matter. A week later, I have heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman, nor has he, upon my request,  pointed me to the figures on which he has relied to make a statement to the House from the Dispatch Box.
On that same day, the right hon. Gentleman also highlighted the fact—at least from his point of view—that £800,000 had been spent with appropriate professionals on due diligence for the Seaborne contract. That is again factually incorrect; that money was spent to do due diligence across the three contracts of over £100 million, not just on the very small Seaborne contract.
I alerted the right hon. Gentleman to my concerns both last week and this morning by hand-delivered letter, and I also delivered the same letter to you, Mr Speaker. I note that the right hon. Gentleman, having been alerted to my concerns, is not in his place to redress the issue at hand, and I now seek your guidance on how the error can be addressed in this place and what other measures I might take at your leisure.

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise this point of order. That was typically courteous of him. I also note that he had informed the Leader of the Opposition of his intention to raise the matter. Moreover, I am conscious—[Interruption.] It would be helpful if I were able to communicate this point to the hon. Gentleman without the background hubbub coming from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who is conducting what is no doubt an absolutely fascinating conversation, but which can wait. I am conscious that the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) has written to the Leader of the Opposition because I have received the copy that he sent to me.
The short answer is that if the Leader of the Opposition believes that he has inadvertently misled the House, it is open to him to correct the record. Each and every Member takes responsibility for the veracity of what he or she says in this place. I simply make the point—I am not trying to argue the toss with the hon. Gentleman; that is not for me to do—that the Leader of the Opposition might have a different view of this matter and that his exegesis of the facts might differ from that of the hon. Gentleman. After all, that is very much in the nature of political discourse and argument. This is a subject of dispute, and perhaps of continued scrutiny.
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is perfectly open to him to continue to write letters to the Leader of the Opposition if he feels that that would be a productive exercise or if he finds it therapeutic. It is alternatively open to him to take the short journey from here to the Table Office to put down some written questions. That is something that I once did myself on quite a substantial scale, so I would certainly not cavil at him doing it; it is absolutely his right. Meanwhile, he has put his concerns and his view of the facts on the record with his customary force.

ASYLUM SEEKERS (PERMISSION TO WORK) (NO. 2)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Catherine West: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for certain asylum seekers to be granted permission to work; and for connected purposes.
Prior to my election as an MP, I worked for a number of years with refugees and asylum seekers who had fled violence and genocide in the former Yugoslavia. Those people left behind their homes, their friends and in most cases their wider families as they searched for safety upon our shores and, crucially, a chance to rebuild their lives. In my own constituency, we have a long history of welcoming refugees. At a meeting in Muswell Hill led by Lord Alf Dubs—himself a refugee from Czechoslovakia who was brought to the UK in 1939 by the Quaker-led Kindertransport train—the audience was asked who among them had a family connection with refugees. Nearly everyone raised their hand.
A group of my constituents runs Haringey Welcomes Refugees to provide a warm welcome for Syrian refugee families and to help with practical support and friendship. As we marked Holocaust Memorial Day in Haringey last month, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I gathered with our communities to hear the personal stories of survivors of totalitarianism. We also heard the stories of survivors of the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, and of many others who have found sanctuary here in the UK. As I remember and reflect on the stories of those families, I am immensely proud that my first ever ten-minute rule Bill seeks to support asylum seekers by empowering them to rebuild their lives by allowing them to work and contribute to society.
I am pleased to have cross-party support for the Bill. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who has been making the case to lift the work ban for some time, as well as to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for his work, most notably on the Syrian refugee crisis, and of course to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who presented her Bill on asylum seekers’ work rights on 10 January. I also pay tribute to the excellent work of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees, under the fantastic chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who leads a great coalition of supporters, as well as to the many charities and stakeholders who have really pushed on this issue.
Under the current rules, asylum seekers are able to apply for the right to work only after they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for over a year. Even then, the few people who are granted such permission are rarely able to work in practice because their employment is restricted to the narrow list of highly skilled professions included on the Government’s shortage occupation list. We have an effective ban on asylum seekers working. I am sure that all hon. Members present today will have their own experiences of people attending their advice surgeries to express their deep frustration at this reality.  Just before Christmas, an old gentleman attended my surgery who had been waiting for a decision on his asylum application for over 12 years. He is desperate to work, but he has now been referred to mental health services to be treated for depression. He is in utter despair at a system that has forced him out of employment and into poverty for so many years.
Comparatively, the UK receives far fewer asylum applications than our European neighbours. We know that the total number of UK applicants represents a very small fraction of our national population—just 0.03% of the current UK labour force. In lieu of the right to work, asylum seekers can access a support payment of £5.39 per day. That allowance needs to cover clothing, transport, food, personal hygiene and often the cost of their asylum application. It is inhumane to force people who are seeking safety from persecution into poverty. It also reduces the chances of smooth economic and social integration and, in doing so, causes longer-term problems.
The OECD has found that legal barriers to employment create the risk of people resorting to informal and sometimes illegal work, which can manifest itself in the form of modern slavery. A change in the law would help to strengthen the Government’s strategy on tackling modern slavery. It is our duty to ensure that our asylum system is morally sound. Whether an asylum application is successful or whether it is ultimately rejected, we must remember throughout the process that the applicants are human beings with needs. There is strong public support for a change that provides refugees with the human dignity of being able to provide for themselves and their families.
Beyond the strong moral case, there is an equally compelling economic argument. Currently, we have around 11,000 adults who have waited more than six months for a decision on their asylum application. The average annual cost of supporting one such person is approximately £5,563, including support payments and accommodation costs. In a scenario in which we extended the right to work to this relatively small group of people, the financial picture would be quite different. Assuming that an individual worked full time on the national minimum wage, they would pay a total tax and national insurance contribution of £1,400 into the Treasury.
In reality, we know that many asylum seekers are highly educated, with university degrees in the fields of law, pharmacy and optometry to name but a few, but those associated professions often fall outside the occupation shortage lists. Lifting the ban would provide an opportunity for the Government to generate larger tax revenues, given that the average UK earner pays £5,745 in tax and national insurance into the Treasury. Estimates indicate an annual economic gain of £42.4 million for the Government as a result of benefit savings and additional tax revenues. This concept has fiscal and moral merit.
I now appeal directly to Government Front Benchers as I quote the words of the then Secretary of State at the former Department for Communities and Local Government—now the Home Secretary—from his “Integrated Communities Strategy” Green Paper. He stated that it was the Government’s ambition
“to build strong integrated communities where people—whatever their background—live, work, learn and socialise together, based on shared rights, responsibilities and opportunities.”
That is an important statement of intent, which we can all agree to. The Home Secretary also indicated his desire to review asylum policy when he responded to my oral question in December 2018, and I hope that the Government will take forward my Bill’s proposal at the earliest opportunity.
Before concluding, as I still have a tiny bit of time on the clock and as it is half term, even though one would not think this was supposed to be a recess week with all the goings on, I thought that I would briefly read from a poem called “Changed” by Miss Grace Barry, a student at Our Lady of Muswell Hill Catholic Primary School, from the “Welcome to Haringey! Poems from our schools” competition. She wrote:
“I watch her step off the bus on the 1st of May,
A permanent scowl etched on her face,
Eyes of coldness looking around,
Knotted, rough hard and a worn-out suitcase…
I watched her step off the bus on the 1st of September,
A permanent grin etched on her face,
Eyes of warmth looking around,
Brushed, silky hair and a brand new suitcase,
Her healthy figure prancing towards me,
As she laughs and jokes, ‘What are you looking at?’
Her accent light and her tone friendly,
Her light footsteps skipping away,
With friends by her side,
Changed by a Haringey welcome.”
I hope that we can all go forward with the spirit of Miss Grace Barry from the constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green and be hopeful and positive. Instead of bigotry being emboldened, perhaps we can be positive about the newly arrived in our communities and think about making this Bill law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Catherine West, Mr Andrew Mitchell, Dame Caroline Spelman, Anna Soubry, Christine Jardine, Kate Green, Mr David Lammy, Alex Sobel, Deidre Brock, Alex Cunningham, Janet Daby and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.
Catherine West accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March, and to be presented (Bill 338).

ESTIMATES (LIAISON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145(3)),
That this House agrees with the Report of the Liaison Committee of 19 February 2019: That a day not later than 18 March 2019 be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for financial year 2018-19: Department for Education, and Department for Work and Pensions.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Aquaculture)

[Relevant document: Tenth Report of the European Statutory Instruments Committee, HC 1794]

George Eustice: I beg to move,
That the draft Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
This instrument extends to Northern Ireland only. The island of Ireland has only 10 native species of fish—40 fewer than in Great Britain and 80 fewer than continental Europe. With fewer species, it has fewer aquatic pests and diseases and, consequently, has a higher aquatic health status. We must ensure that that situation is maintained. We also acknowledge the vulnerability of the aquatic environment and the aquaculture industry to the introduction of diseases and alien species.
In Northern Ireland, aquaculture is a small but valuable market. In 2017, aquaculture production accounted for 1,248 tonnes of finfish at a value of over £6.5 million on 36 active licensed sites and 5,831 tonnes of shellfish, mainly mussels and oysters, at a value of over £9 million on 43 active aquaculture sites. The sector employs 93 full- time and 33 part-time staff.
Disease freedom underpins international regulations on the trade in live animals and their products. Northern Ireland enjoys a higher health status than the rest of the UK, as it is free from many of the most serious aquatic animal diseases. The maintenance and protection of Northern Ireland’s aquatic health status safeguards the interest of the aquaculture sector, as well as the public, who derive health and wellbeing benefits from angling and other recreational activities.
This statutory instrument will provide the necessary technical corrections to the Aquatic Animal Health Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009, which are the principal regulations, and the Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 to ensure operability when the UK leaves the EU. The instrument does not introduce any policy changes.

John Redwood: I fully support what my hon. Friend is trying to do for continuity, but can we expect further legislation shortly after leaving—if we leave without signing a withdrawal agreement—because we would presumably want our own policy then?

George Eustice: My right hon. Friend will be aware that once we leave the EU, whether without an agreement or after the conclusion of the implementation period, the UK will be free to legislate independently in such areas, rather than having to do so in accordance with EU directives.
The UK Government remain committed to restoring devolution in Northern Ireland. However, in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, UK Ministers have decided that, in the interest of legal certainty for Northern Ireland, the Government will take through the necessary secondary legislation at Westminster for Northern Ireland in close consultation with the relevant Northern Ireland Department.
The proposed amendments fall into three main categories. First, cross-references to EU instruments are amended so that they are operable after EU exit. The amendments modify cross-references to the 2006 directive contained in the principal regulations. The modifications are essential to ensure the operability of the principal regulations following the UK’s exit from the EU. They are common amendments that appear throughout Northern Ireland, England and Wales and Scotland EU exit statutory instruments. For example, the amendments substitute references to “Member State” or “Member States” with “Northern Ireland”, the “Competent Authority” or the “UK or a constituent UK territory”, and references to the EU are changed to the UK. The amendments also include the substitution of references to articles in the directive with references to provisions in the domestic Northern Ireland regulations that transposed the directive to ensure a reference point in the regulation itself, rather than to an EU directive. Some cross-references contain further cross-references to the directive and, in these cases, the cross-references have been followed through to modify all the necessary provisions.
Secondly, a group of provisions will be redundant or inoperable in Northern Ireland law after EU exit. This instrument makes an amendment to the Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 to remove the reference to a representative of the European Commission being able to accompany an inspector of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, because it will no longer be appropriate for such an official to attend after we leave the EU.
Finally, there are cross-references to directly applicable EU instruments to reflect technical amendments made to such instruments by other UK-wide SIs. Part 2 of annex 4 to directive 2006/88 contains listed diseases. It was replaced with a new annex 1A inserted into regulation 1251/2008 by the Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to enable the UK to amend the list of diseases in retained EU law following exit from the EU. The amendments are made to replace references to annex 4 of the directive to annex 1A to the regulation, which will ensure correct references to retained EU law in the domestic Northern Ireland regulations.
Given the unique biodiversity of the island of Ireland, DAERA officials work closely with their Irish counterparts on a range of fish health issues, especially with regard to contingency planning, trade matters, disease issues and biosecurity. Co-operation on such matters was in place long before we joined the EU and will continue when the UK leaves the EU. There is a close working relationship across the island of Ireland on fish health and aquaculture.
For example, the Bottom Grown Mussel Consultative Forum facilitates the management of the seed mussel fishery on an all-island basis. It consists of officials from Departments, scientists, enforcement agents, Inland Fisheries Ireland and the aquaculture industry. The group has been instrumental in securing the Marine Stewardship Council certification for Irish bottom-grown mussels. This prestigious status ensures premium market access for Ireland’s top-quality mussels, and it demonstrates that the sector is vigilant on disease prevention and control, maintains high biosecurity standards and is environmentally aware.
The intention of the regulations is to maintain the status quo and keep the aquatic animal health and alien species in aquaculture regimes functioning much as they do now. The regulations do not create new policy or change existing policy. As a result, no significant impacts are expected to arise from them. In moving this statutory instrument, a workable legal framework underpinning business as usual in the aquatic animal health and alien and locally absent species in aquaculture regimes will be preserved after exit.

John Redwood: I seek to clarify my earlier question, which did not seem to get through. Is the Department working on a better regime for fishing in general, and for fish health in particular, for once we have left? This is a great opportunity, and fishing is an area that has been very badly damaged by EU membership.

George Eustice: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that we have an operable law book on day one after leaving the European Union, but he will also be aware that, separately, the Fisheries Bill is going through the House—it has completed its Committee stage and will return shortly on Report. I can confirm that the Bill has a dedicated provision that gives the Government power to legislate in the area of fish health in particular so we can improve on the current regime and make any necessary changes. These regulations are simply about ensuring we make retained EU law operable, and I commend them to the House.

Sandy Martin: I put on record the Opposition’s general concern about how the Government are scheduling secondary legislation and the limited means of scrutiny it offers. Given the serious dangers that would accrue if we get any of these statutory instruments wrong, it is regrettable that, nearly two years after invoking article 50, we are now having to rush everything through in the last few days. Neither Opposition parties nor other stakeholders can have any confidence about when each statutory instrument will be debated. Even when they have been scheduled, we sometimes do not know from hour to hour.
The explanatory memorandum states:
“Without this instrument… This may prevent trade between Northern Ireland and the EU and Third Countries after the UK leaves the EU.”
It also states:
“If this legislation is not progressed then this would result in an incomplete statute book on Day 1 of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”
The Opposition will support these regulations today, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed our questions about the process, about what replaces EU procedures and, specifically, about the replacement for Council directive 2006/88.
Some stakeholders were not able to comment on this statutory instrument because they needed to prioritise many other much larger, more contentious pieces of secondary legislation, such as the Floods and Water (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, both of which we opposed recently. We run the risk of exposing ourselves to unintended consequences if we continue to pass rushed legislation that has not had external scrutiny.
We have, at most, 90 minutes to consider this statutory instrument, and there is no real chance for amendments. There has been no time for impact assessment and only very limited consultation. Can the Minister be absolutely certain that no mistakes have been made, such as the blunder on the revocation of some of the powers of the inshore fisheries conservation officers as part of the Government’s so-called red tape challenge?
The explanatory memorandum states that this statutory instrument has
“no, or no significant, impact”.
Can the Minister tell us how significant an impact would have to be before it is reckoned to be significant?
One consequence of leaving the EU will be the potential loss of pan-European scientific expertise. We currently have access to Europe-wide research and analysis to shape our decisions. What steps are being taken to ensure that the scientific advice will be of the same technical and authoritative standard after these regulations are transposed? What additional funding will be allocated to Northern Ireland research to plug this gap? How will we continue to tap into EU scientific expertise, and what negotiations are taking place on continued participation in the EU’s intelligence-sharing networks?
Although we do not doubt our scientific community’s expertise on aquatic animal health and plant life, unless we adhere doggedly to European Union standards, over which we will no longer have any control, we will be placing an extra workload on our scientific advisers, which they may not have the resources to fulfil.
The Minister mentioned the changes to directive 2006/88 but, for the avoidance of doubt, what will replace the EU standing committee on the food chain and animal health in Northern Ireland? Given that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting, and probably will not be sitting after 29 March, what elected body will take on the responsibilities of the European Parliament in this matter, as per the procedure referred to in article 62(2) of the directive?
The explanatory memorandum states:
“Whilst the UK will be under no legal obligation to adhere to EU rules for aquatic animal health following EU exit, failure to do so could result in the UK being unable to trade in aquaculture…products with EU Member States and third countries.”
The UK exports a very large proportion of fish and shellfish, so it seems important that there should be a similarly rigorous system for establishing disease-free zones—one that mirrors the current EU process—otherwise there would be a very real likelihood that the EU would refuse to take Northern Ireland’s produce in future. What plans does the Minister have to mirror the current level of scrutiny for declaring disease-free zones?
This statutory instrument changes the Northern Irish law that implements directive 2006/88, and it is designed to preserve the existing level of environmental protection by maintaining the current approach to aquatic animal health and the management of aquaculture. The Minister mentioned regulation 2016/249, which will apply from 2021, and I fail to understand some of the links in this statutory instrument—I apologise for that, but I could not find anyone who does understand them—so will he explain what his Department will do?
What are the Minister’s plans to introduce UK legislation to implement the commitments provided for in the new EU animal health strategy? What assessment has the  Department made of the influence of climate change on the emergence of new diseases, the prevalence of existing diseases and the geographic distribution of disease agents and vectors, as mentioned in the EU animal health strategy 2007 to 2013? If the Department has not undertaken any such assessment, and has no plans to do so, does it not mean that we will need to continue to rely on the EU to do this work for us and that we will have to adhere to whatever further directives the EU comes up with?
We will support these regulations because we need to address the deficiencies in domestic legislation that will arise from Brexit. Northern Irish law must be able to operate after the UK leaves the EU, and it must not leave Northern Ireland unable to trade with European Union countries including, of course, the Republic. We must be careful there are no unintended consequences that would risk the health of aquatic animals or that would fail to facilitate trade, so I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the points I have raised.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the details set out by the Minister. As we know, aquaculture is not a big sector of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, but it is a critical part of it. Aquaculture creates a large number of jobs and, more importantly, it boosts the local economy—the 36 licences have been mentioned.
The Minister mentioned mussels and oysters, and we have an excellent, disease-free product in Northern Ireland. Strangford lough, which gives its name to my constituency, has a strong oyster base, and I want its importance to increase for the export market. The statutory instrument refers to alien species, an issue that often comes up in this important sector, because waters can bring in invasive species. The Minister outlined how the regulations will continue things.
The co-operation between the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the fisheries Department in particular, and the Republic of Ireland is of some interest to me, as it should be to everyone in this House. Can the Minister confirm that the Republic of Ireland accepts the rules as put forward in the SI? I understand the issue he referred to in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly and devolution. I thank him for his confirmation about the process of secondary legislation and about no delays. It is important that we have no delays and that we have a fluent system that flows easily into the new devolution and new position we will have after 29 March. With the secondary legislation in place, will the licences continue to be issued by the fisheries division at the Northern Ireland Assembly? The “nothing changes” regulations and scrutiny, to which the shadow Minister referred, mean that the produce can continue to be exported, and that is very important. Our mussels and oysters in Northern Ireland have excellent health and our markets remain open.
The Minister has always had at heart the interests of the fisheries sector and, in particular, the aquaculture sector, which although small is significant in what it does. I have spoken to the local fish producers organisations and asked for their opinion, and they are quite happy with what is going forward. If we have the support and blessing of the local fishing sector—those who are  involved in aquaculture, and the mussels and oysters sector—we should let this SI make its way through the House of Commons, ever mindful of the importance of having these things in place come 29 March.

John Bercow: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) is poised like a panther. Does he wish to speak?

Alan Brown: indicated assent.

John Bercow: Yes, well then I call Mr Alan Brown.

Alan Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be brief. The way these SIs have been presented today sums up the chaos and farce of this UK Government. The one that merited the most debate was the one on motor insurance, but it has been pulled by the Government at the last minute, leading us to the one before us. In principle, I do not like this place legislating for Northern Ireland when something should be undertaken by the devolved Assembly. I suggest that the UK Government should be doing much more to get the devolved Assembly up and running, to allow it to take responsibility where it has the right competences.
Despite that, I accept that we are dealing with mainly technical amendments, bringing EU legislation into domestic legislation. For that reason, I certainly would not oppose this SI. Leaving aside the technical amendments, one reason why this SI has come here for debate is that the Commons sifting Committee expressed concerns about the legislative function of appropriate buffer zones to prevent the introduction of exotic diseases to aquatic species in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister say what the implications are for the competent authority in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm what the outcome of his consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs officials was? The consultation is referred to in the explanatory notes, so will he confirm its outcome?
Finally, if we are looking at a potential no-deal scenario, I suggest that the UK Government should be absolutely focused in their efforts on ruling out a no-deal outcome. They should get it off the table and listen to the will of this House, because that will have a far bigger potential impact on the aquaculture industry and it really should be the focus for this Government. Their focus should be on taking a no-deal scenario off the table.

George Eustice: First, let me address the points made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). This is an important issue and I take exception to the suggestion that a transport issue could be more important than aquaculture. As I said at the beginning, it is an important industry in Northern Ireland, but it is also an important industry in Scotland. He will be aware that the Scottish Government have brought forward their own regulations to ensure that these EU regulations are operable in UK law and that Scottish authorities can continue to regulate the aquaculture sector in a way that is important.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important issue about the sifting Committee, which had indeed recommended that this SI be debated on the Floor of the House and is an affirmative resolution, rather than a negative resolution, as was the initial proposal. As he said, the Committee picked up on the reference to the ability to establish buffer zones. It raised a concern that this was a new power, but I can confirm that it is not a new power. This power already exists and it was probably a misunderstanding of the way the provision is phrased that led the Committee to consider that this was a new power being taken. In fact, DAERA, on behalf of Northern Ireland, has always been able to exercise this power. That said, given the importance of this issue, we chose not to challenge the sifting Committee recommendation that it should be debated, even though we believe it may have been based on a misunderstanding. I am happy to clarify here on the Floor of the House that the power to establish appropriate buffer zones is not a new power, but one that already exists.
Turning to the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can confirm that his understanding is exactly right: officials in DAERA will continue to be responsible for the licensing of aquaculture activities. The whole purpose of all these Brexit SIs is that they maintain the status quo and that there will be no change. Indeed, without them, there would be some doubt about whether DAERA would be able to exercise the full suite of powers available to it, because elements of the retained EU law that it will rely upon would become inoperable. This SI corrects any of those said deficiencies.
Finally, let me address the comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin). He asked what we will do when we do not have the EU to give us the science in these areas, to make regulations and to tell us what we ought to be doing. I simply say that as we leave the EU it will be for us to decide these things and we have some of the best fisheries science in the world. Across the UK, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is our lead fisheries science agency. It is a world-leading agency and other Governments right across the globe seek input and expertise from our British fisheries science agencies.
Northern Ireland has its own CEFAS equivalent—its own Northern Ireland-based fisheries science capability, hosted within the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute. The AFBI is a multidisciplinary organisation, with 650 staff involved in all sorts of high-technology research and development. It leads on fisheries science. This morning, I met Mark McCaughan who is a chief scientific officer on fisheries. The AFBI has a fisheries science base in Stormont and it leads on all the key technical work that needs to be done on issues such as fish health and preventing invasive species.
As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government have had long-standing co-operation on building joint management plans for sectors such as mussels that predates the EU. These arrangements will continue; they do not need the EU to stand behind them. The island of Ireland is a single epidemiological area, and there has always been close co-operation on these matters.
There is a tendency for all these debates to cover lots of technical detail, as the hon. Gentleman said. However, it is important to remember that all we are doing with  these SIs is substituting the words “United Kingdom Government” for “the European Commission” and making other such amendments. We are not making substantive changes. Members need to bear in mind that probably the most pernicious so-called Henry VIII power of all was the European Communities Act, because section 2(2) of that Act meant that with negative instruments all over the place the European Commission was in effect able to rampage through our domestic law book. The irony is that when any of these regulations were introduced in the House via a negative SI, sometimes to implement delegated Acts from the European Union, there would have been little or no parliamentary scrutiny. It is only now, as we seek to make those regulations that have been in place for some time operable, that Members seem to be concerned.

Jim Shannon: To reiterate and strengthen the opinion the Minister has just rehearsed, it is important to note that the local fish producers organisations that I referred to endorse what the Minister is putting forward today. If they have faith in the Minister and what he is putting forward, we in the House should have the same faith.

George Eustice: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation. There was indeed consultation, but it was led by DAERA. It is important to recognise that we are doing this on DAERA’s behalf and at its request. DAERA has co-operated and consulted widely with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and I understand that the regulations have their support. In conclusion—

Sandy Martin: The Minister has not fully answered my question about the way in which directive 2006/88 is being replaced by regulation 2016/249. He mentioned something about an automatic carry-over, but I do not really understand how that works. The statutory instrument says:
“After regulation 21(6), insert—
‘(7) For the purposes of paragraph (1), regulations 19(3)(c) and 21(1) and paragraphs (1)(c)(iii) and 4(d) of Schedule 1A, Part A of Annex 3 to Directive 2006/88’”
and so on. It is almost impossible for anybody to work out what is actually happening. Will the Minister describe how we are going to take on regulation 2016 rather than directive 2006, as a result of this statutory instrument?

George Eustice: The point that hon. Gentleman describes in some detail is a point that I explained in my opening speech when I talked about cross-references. If the retained EU law retained a reference to an EU directive, that would no longer be operable, because EU directives would no longer apply in the UK. The only way to make such provisions operable is to have a reference point in UK law. The 2006 regulations will become retained EU law on a UK legal basis. All we are saying is that we will change references to the original directive that gave rise to the regulation and make them references contained within the regulations themselves, so that they will remain operable. It is quite complicated, but essentially it boils down to this: EU directives will cease to have effect in the UK after we leave, but retained EU law will continue to have effect, so if there are provisions in directives that we wish to retain, we must bring them over in the retained EU law. In this case, we do that with the regulation concerned.
We have explored some of the key areas of this statutory instrument. I hope I have been able to reassure Members not only that this instrument is essential to ensure that we have an operable rulebook in this area on day one of exit, but that we are not creating any policy changes or new policy through this statutory instrument. We are simply ensuring that the arrangements that pertain today can continue. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION (AGRICULTURE)

[Relevant document: Eighth Report of the European Statutory Instruments Committee, HC 1699.]

George Eustice: I beg to move,
That the draft Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.
This instrument makes amendments to domestic legislation and retained direct EU legislation that would otherwise not be operable after our exit from the European Union. It makes only those changes required to ensure a smooth exit from the European Union and does not change the definition or compositional requirements of fertilisers.
Fertilisers are essential yearly inputs for the UK agricultural, horticultural and amenity sectors. The UK is a net importer of fertiliser products, with only domestic production of potash, polyhalite, ammonium nitrate and lime contributing to the UK’s total fertiliser requirement. The legislation on fertilisers concerns the manufacturing and marketing of products. It provides for the definition, composition, labelling and packaging requirements for specific categories of fertilisers that are set out in lists. This legislation does not address the application or use of fertilisers. Such issues tend to be dealt with through separate provisions in measures such as the nitrates directive.
In 1975, the EU created its first set of legislation relating to fertilisers. However, the wide disparity in existing fertiliser rules between member states, and the bulky nature of these materials restricting cross-border trade, meant that it was not suitable to fully harmonise rules on all fertilisers throughout the EU. Instead, fertiliser rules were partially harmonised to begin to remove technical barriers to trade within the EU. The UK has therefore kept its existing domestic framework alongside the EU framework. The EU regulation sets out the requirements for so-called EC fertilisers, or previously EEC fertilisers, which can be sold freely across the European Union. Manufacturers can choose which framework to market their products under. This partial harmonisation remains in place today.
The current domestic framework for any material described as a fertiliser is the Fertiliser Regulations 1991. In the EU, the current framework is the EU regulation EC 2003/2003, which applies only to fertilisers labelled “EC fertiliser”. It was implemented in UK law by the EC Fertilisers Regulations 2006. In addition, ammonium nitrate fertilisers are controlled through safety regulations that apply to all ammonium nitrate in Great Britain.
This statutory instrument amends domestic legislation that is out of date and addresses the failures of retained EU law to operate effectively, along with other deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Part 2 of the instrument amends out of date references in the domestic legislation. For example, it omits references to “EC fertilisers” and “EEC fertilisers” to ensure clarity for users of the legislation.
In the case of EU legislation, part 3 of this instrument amends retained EU law to ensure that it will operate effectively after exit day. For example, references to  member states and the Commission are amended to refer instead to UK authorities. A requirement on the language to be used on labels is also amended. It replicates the EU framework in UK law, replacing the “EC fertiliser” label with a new equivalent “UK fertiliser” label. The requirements will otherwise remain the same. The instrument also amends the EU framework to include a provision that preserves the ability of relevant bodies in the UK to continue to be able to take certain actions such as prescribing how specified fertilisers should be identified. Part 4 amends domestic legislation as a result of exit, ensuring continuity of supply by recognising the EC fertilisers label for a two-year transitional period after exit day. This will minimise burdens on businesses and authorities and enable suppliers to use up existing stocks, both of fertilisers and packaging. The amendments in the statutory instrument do not change the definition, compositional requirements, or labelling or packaging rules for fertilisers, whether they are marketed under the existing domestic framework—the 1991 regulations—or the EU framework.
Ammonium nitrate fertilisers are additionally covered by domestic safety regulations, since they can be misused as improvised explosives and pose safety risks if mishandled in manufacture, transport or storage. It is worth noting that part 4 of the instrument also amends the regulations surrounding ammonium nitrate fertilisers with high nitrogen content in Great Britain, to treat imports from EU member states the same as imports from other third countries in line with World Trade Organisation obligations.
Under the GB ammonium nitrate regulations, the rules for imports from the EU are different from those for imports from outside the EU. In the light of WTO rules, it would not be possible to retain these differences, so the instrument amends some aspects of the ammonium nitrate regulations, in particular the detonation resistance tests, to apply the more stringent of the two regimes to all imports after the end of the two-year transition period and to uphold current safety standards.
The definition of what constitutes a “batch” of ammonium nitrate differs depending on whether the import comes from the EU or elsewhere.

Julian Sturdy: This is a very important issue for the fertiliser industry. Could the Minister clarify whether this provision would give the opportunity to Ministers and the Department to charge fees to cover the costs of tests needed for official control measures?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why the regulations were referred by the sifting Committee for debate. There is already a power in the existing regulations for authorities to make charges for that testing. All we sought to do in drafting was retain that ability. Broadly speaking, the testing we do here in the UK is run by the Health and Safety Executive at our facility in Buxton and it tends to be a commercial choice for the fertiliser companies whether to use that or to use an alternative at their own cost. There is not really a cost recovery mechanism that is deployed beyond that; it is simply based on research done by the companies. We have clarified and made a change to the drafting of the regulation to be clear that we simply seek to retain the existing abilities to charge rather than to create new ones.
Continuity of supply is ensured by a transitional period for imports from the EU, which provides 99% of imported ammonium nitrate to the UK. That allows the continuation of current rules on the time limit for detonation resistance tests and the ability to recognise EU laboratory test certificates. These arrangements give manufacturers time to prepare for compliance with the import rules post exit and reduce any burdens on UK laboratories immediately after exit.
The definition of what constitutes a “batch” of ammonium nitrate differs depending on whether the import comes from the EU or elsewhere. We have taken a view on that regarding when the quantity of material manufactured without alteration of composition or characteristics is longer than 92 days. We will therefore retain the EU definition of “batch”.
The instrument was previously presented to the sifting Committee on 1 November 2018 as one that should be subject to the negative procedure. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), the sifting Committee did not agree. It considered that the effect of one regulation was to allow Ministers to charge fees. In addition, it considered that the instrument conferred powers to legislate. It therefore recommended that this instrument be debated in Parliament. The instrument has been amended since it was presented to the sifting Committee to reflect certain recommendations in the Committee’s report. For example, the provisions that the Committee considered to confer powers to legislate have been redrafted to make it clear that they do not contain new legislative functions.
In general, fertiliser policy, as with other agriculture policy, is devolved. The devolved Administrations were closely engaged in developing these regulations, which apply to the same geographical area as the original legislation that they amend. All Administrations have agreed to maintain a single common framework for fertilisers labelled as UK fertilisers, while continuing their own domestic framework. That will make the marketing of fertilisers much clearer for industry, and is a good example of how well the four Administrations work together towards a common goal.
The instrument relates to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards, with no significant impacts or new administrative or economic burdens on business or other stakeholders. Although there was no statutory requirement to consult on the instrument, officials have held discussions with key stakeholders, including the fertiliser manufacturers’ representative body, which is the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and the farmers’ representative body—obviously, the National Farmers Union. Their main concerns have been addressed by allowing for a transitional period for existing rules and compliance with the amended rules.
In conclusion, the changes to the rules on ammonium nitrate have been developed in conjunction with the HSE and the Home Office, to ensure that safety and security elements are maintained. This package of measures is essential to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate effectively in the UK once we leave the EU. I commend the regulations to the House.

David Drew: I am delighted to take part in this statutory instrument debate and welcome the Minister to his place. A couple of weeks  ago I thought, when we got Committee Room 14, that we could not get a bigger audience to listen to these statutory instrument debates. How little did I know that we would end up in the main Chamber? I will sound the usual caveat that the Opposition do not think this is the way to scrutinise secondary legislation. Some of it is very important, and it is being rushed through at the speed of light. With the best will in the world, it is very difficult to scrutinise, and we are obliged to rely on the capability of the civil service to ensure that the exercise they are doing, which is largely a cut-and-paste job, is right; otherwise, mistakes will be made, which we will only learn about in due course.
The Minister was right to say that the process became an affirmative procedure at the request of the House of Commons sifting Committee, and the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) was right to point out that one reason for that was that there is a cost implication, because DEFRA has the ability to charge fees for the costs of tests. The other two reasons were that the instrument confers powers to legislate, changing the functions of the UK as a member state to functions of UK public authorities—presumably a reference to the Health and Safety Executive—and that these amendments had an impact on the safety regulations governing the import of ammonium nitrate materials from outside the EU.
The instrument before us is not a contentious piece of legislation, but it is important because ammonium nitrate, for those who know, is explosive. My own port of Sharpness, which imports fertilisers, including ammonium nitrate, was regularly policed in the days of the IRA because of what could happen to that ammonium nitrate. So we cannot but do our best to ensure that the instrument is as foolproof as possible.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. We do not intend to oppose the instrument, but it is important that we get it right. Clearly, fertilisers are crucial to agriculture, but they are also controversial. If the Agriculture Bill does return to the Floor of the House, amendments will be tabled on Report on the relationship to the Government’s environmental strategy, which is about using fewer fertilisers, and on looking at agri-ecology as an alternative way of producing our food supply. So this is quite a controversial area to the extent that there are those who would say that we should reduce, if not remove, fertilisers and find other ways to grow our food.
This instrument provides for the definition, composition, labelling and packaging of fertilisers, and given that the UK imports the vast majority of its fertiliser, we are dependent on those who wish to export it to us. That will be a substantial change, if and when we leave the EU, because we may choose to import from different parts of the world, and we must ensure that we are completely clear on the safeguards and that the regulatory regime is fit for purpose.
At the moment—I am not sure whether the Minister said this—businesses can choose whether to use the current UK regulatory regime for fertilisers or one that is available from the EU. It will be interesting to know what the Minister thinks about potential changes, and the implied costs. Again, we make our usual criticism that there is no regulatory impact assessment. It is only fair and reasonable to ask what the cost implications are.  Yesterday, I managed to take part in a debate with the Department of Health and Social Care on pharmaceuticals, and it provided a regulatory impact assessment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not seem to be very good at producing such assessments. Its argument is always that there are no explicit cost implications. That is easy to say, but it would be much easier for us to make a judgment if we could look at that and investigate it.
The explanatory memorandum—this may be my inability to access IT—refers to a technical note on page five, but I cannot download that note. It would be useful to know what it contains, but I may be able to obtain it in a different format. It is important that that is made available to those who need to know, whether they are in the business or whether they wish to scrutinise what we are up to.
As I have said, I have a series of questions for the Minister, as always, to keep him on his toes and make sure that we know what we are doing. The Nature Friendly Farming Network raises the case of those who have stored fertilisers that have been labelled under the EU system. What is the status of those fertilisers after the two years are up? Should they be destroyed? Can people continue to use them? Do the fertilisers have to be re-regulated? What is likely to be the situation? As we know, many farm products are stored for years, if not decades, so it is important to know the timeframe for existing products. Will the Minister say something about that, as people want certainty about it, and they need to know exactly what the implications are.
The Nature Friendly Farming Network says that the rules for imports from the EU are different from those for imports outside the EU. Presumably, we need a standard trade agreement, otherwise we will have a differentiated trade in fertilisers. What will the Minister do to ensure that that is the case, so that there is consistency?
The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board does not have any particular bones of contention, but it is important that we listen to what it says, especially on the environmental effects of non-organic fertilisers. It would be a retrograde step to move away from the progressive approaches to which we have signed up as part of our membership of the EU. What are the Government doing to make sure that there is not a race to the bottom if we look for cheaper, non-organic substitutes, which would lead to all sorts of problems if they got into the water supply. At the very least, they would be likely to damage soil quality, which we discussed at great length when we considered the Agriculture Bill and which features heavily in the Government’s draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill.
The principal concern of the Agricultural Industries Confederation is about certainty, which is not there because of the current Brexit situation. It would be interesting to know what discussions the Minister has had with the AIC. If we crash out and have to adopt WTO tariffs, that will have a major impact on the industry because of its reliance on imports. What analysis have the Government made of the impact on the industry and on farmers in general?
Likewise, the National Farmers Union is clear that it needs continuity and an uninterrupted supply of fertilisers. It is worried about the cost implications if we cannot  continue to source our fertilisers. I believe that most come from Spain and some come from elsewhere in the EU. That is important.
The Landworkers Alliance states that the agrochemicals, antibiotics and nitrate fertilisers used in intensive farming have a negative effect. What is being done to ensure, as I said earlier, that there is no race to the bottom and that we pay more than just lip service in our commitment to the environment? That is also important.
Although the Soil Association has no specific reason to doubt the Government’s intention for the faithful transposition of measures into UK law, it is concerned about the environmental objectives of the regulations, which are not necessarily spelled out as clearly as they could be. When the Minister sums up, it is important that he says something positive about that.
In conclusion, farmers need fertilisers. They need certainty about access and supply. On agroecology, we need to understand that, as the world moves forward, we will need fewer of them, but we will also need to ensure that they are good quality and, I hope, organic and that people are able to eat good, wholesome food. The one drawback from lack of access to fertilisers is that we could end up with an overabundance of phosphates and nitrates, which will have an impact on the food that we eat and the human food chain. It is important, therefore, that the Government commit to no diminution of standards. We have regularly heard them say that, but we have yet to see it in legislation, and there is no better place to put it than the Agriculture Bill. I hope that the Minister is listening and that the Government will ensure that they do not just talk about the issue but carry it through in the Bill so that our soils are replete and our farming can guarantee wholesome food, which is what we all want.

John Bercow: The natural modesty of the hon. Gentleman has prevented him from announcing to the House and for the edification of those observing our proceedings that in speaking from his party’s Front Bench he does so not as David Drew but as Dr David Drew, blessed with a doctorate in rural economy. That is something that should be known to the world. I call Minister George Eustice.

Deidre Brock: rose—

John Bercow: I do beg the hon. Lady’s pardon. There was a change of personnel on the Scottish National party Front Bench. Although we very much look forward to what the Minister has to say, it will not be before we have heard from Deidre Brock.

Deidre Brock: Here we are once again creating legislation to replicate legislation that the dastardly EU has imposed upon us. EU legislation is so oppressive that we have to pass the same legislation to free ourselves of the tyranny of EU red tape—taking back control to change nothing.
We should take a moment, however, to consider the imports of products used by the agricultural industries and how logjam at entry points may well affect that process, no matter how many lorries park on old airfields.  The UK imports about 70% of fertilisers, very little potash but half the ammonium nitrate and all of the phosphorus used. They cannot be stockpiled because there is no significant additional capacity, and ammonium nitrate in particular needs storage that minimises the risk of explosion. The lorries need to keep running, the ports need to keep functioning and the imports need to be frictionless, or there will be little in the way of harvest bounties, and that is before we get on to imported seed, plant protection products and animal feed. If the ports get choked with border checks and UK red tape, it will not matter what these regulations say, because food production on these islands will suffer.
I welcome the two-year transitional period, but I can see no reason why the acceptance that the EU regulations work cannot be extended indefinitely. Let the fertilisers be sold as they are now, and indeed the plant protection products, seed and the animal feed. We trust the EU, don’t we? I also welcome the requirement for Ministers to get the approval of the devolved Administrations before making regulations about fertilisers. That seems a very sensible way forward and a path that other Departments could consider following. The various Administrations offer wisdom that should be welcomed, and we trust the Scottish Government, don’t we?
I do have concerns about the regime to control the quality of the products available, particularly when I consider that Ministers will face the temptation of reducing the tariffs on Russian products, particularly ammonium nitrate. The anti-dumping duties that the EU imposes on Russian ammonium nitrate will disappear unless they are replicated by the regulations, and the implications that will have for the quality of imports is certainly worth considering carefully. It will be an issue that gets snarled up in any future trade negotiations both with the EU and with Russia.
I would like to believe the Government will ensure quality and resist the temptation to cut tariffs and duties, but I would have liked to believe there was actually a plan for the Brexit negotiations, or at least some impact assessments that looked at what is actually happening. I have certainly been sorely let down on that. I would be grateful for the Minister’s view when he responds. Further to the fact that the Minister mentioned that more stringent regulations will now be applied to ammonium nitrate from the EU, in line with those currently applied to countries outwith the EU, what added costs might result from those extra regulations?
This is one of hundreds of statutory instruments that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs —despite the best efforts, I am sure, of its civil servants—is lagging behind on. The National Audit Office report on DEFRA’s readiness for Brexit was scathing in its assessment, to the point that I think we have to regard it as an impossible task for DEFRA to get ready.
I wish there was a way of ensuring that the products farmers need to produce food will get to them, but the sudden shutting off of the supplies that they need looks set to become a reality, whatever secondary legislation is passed here. A better decision by far would be to extend article 50 and see whether things could be reconsidered. I am tempted by the thought—the hopeful possibility—that we could pass this legislation and guarantee supply, but I know that is not realistic. I have many concerns about the import regime to follow and the corralling of powers in Ministers’ hands.
It is disappointing to say the least that this is the best on offer. It is disappointing that a Government who claimed so much was possible is content with this. I really hope that that failure does not come back to haunt us all.

George Eustice: I now have even more points to try to address, and I will do so as comprehensively as I can.
First, I turn to the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew). He raised a general point about the use of fertilisers, which is that we should be trying to encourage more sustainability, perhaps through the use of organic fertilisers. He will be aware from the discussions we have had in the Agriculture Public Bill Committee that we are looking, in clause 1, to be able to incentivise more environmentally sustainable farming, which could include, for instance, supporting the use of organic farmyard manures more than manufactured fertilisers. He should also recognise that increases in fuel costs have anyway had a major knock-on impact on the cost of fertilisers in recent decades, such that in the past 30 years or so fertiliser use in the UK has fallen by about 40% already. He pointed out that at the moment we import most of our ammonium nitrate, predominantly from the European Union; there is one manufacturer of ammonium nitrate here in the UK.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on security—in particular, whether there is a risk that the material will get into the hands of terrorists. As I pointed out, we have gone for the more stringent detonating test regime, meaning that any consignment imported to the UK, whether from the European Union or a third country, would have to have had that detonation test within the previous 60 days. We are applying the more stringent set of rules that we have for third countries to all countries.
On the general issue of security, I also point out that in 2006 a fertiliser industry assurance scheme was set up between the Government and the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and it has since successfully created and monitored voluntary standards in the industry supply chain to ensure that ammonium nitrate fertiliser can be traced and does not end up in the wrong hands.
Although we have made changes to the GB regime for detonation testing and the ammonium nitrate regime, as I said in my opening comments Northern Ireland has its own specific rules in this area. The ammonium nitrate safety regulations apply to Great Britain. Owing to the past misuse of ammonium nitrate in making improvised explosive devices, Northern Ireland has its own controls under the Control of Explosives Precursors etc. Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 and, under existing rules, the Explosives (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Those prevent any import, storage or use of ammonium nitrate fertilisers without a tier 1 explosives precursor licence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The situation in Northern Ireland is more thorough still, given the tragic history of which we are all aware.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that we have not conducted an impact assessment. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) pointed  out, that is because we are not seeking to make any substantive change to policy—indeed, the stated aim of all these EU exit SIs is, as far as we are able, to maintain the status quo from day one after we leave the European Union, to ensure that we have an operable law book. He also made a specific point about the technical note on page 5, which he claimed he could not download. I am reliably informed that, since he mentioned that, my officials have been online to double-check and successfully downloaded it. Perhaps the issue had more to do with the hon. Gentleman’s IT than with our system; nevertheless, I thank him for raising that so that we could at least double-check.
The hon. Gentleman also raised an important point about storage: what happens if material is stored beyond the two-year transition? We arrived at the two-year transition period for sale having consulted the industry. The industry generally thought it an appropriate period both to be able to market its existing stocks and to give it plenty of time to use up any residual fertiliser packaging and order new packaging.

Julian Sturdy: I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest. Would what the Minister has said apply to on-farm stock as well?

George Eustice: No. I was about to come to precisely that point, which was also made by the shadow Minister. If during the two-year transition period a farmer has bought products labelled under the previous EU regulations, he can then store them on farm. As I pointed out at the beginning, these are marketing regulations—pertaining to the sale of product, not storage or use after sale.
Finally, the hon. Members for Stroud and for Edinburgh North and Leith asked about the specific issue of tariffs on fertilisers. This is an issue that the Government are currently considering. As hon. Members may be aware, while farming representative groups such as the NFU would like to retain tariffs on some agricultural commodities, they are equally keen to have tariff rate suspensions on some fertiliser products. We are giving that consideration. It is important to note, however, that if we were to set a unilateral autonomous tariff rate quota or suspend tariffs on a unilateral basis, we would have to offer the same terms to all countries in the world, probably including Russia, notwithstanding the approach the European Union is currently taking.

John Redwood: Can the Minister confirm that SNP Members were deliberately scare- mongering when they said that farmers would not be able to import any more after 29 March? Will he confirm that foreign suppliers are not cancelling contracts for after Brexit?

George Eustice: I can confirm that we do not envisage any problems at all with the importing of fertiliser, even in a no-deal scenario. That is predominantly because these products—

David Linden: rose—

George Eustice: Let me conclude my point first and then the hon. Gentleman can decide whether I have answered the point adequately.
Fertilisers tend to come in bulk, predominantly through Harwich on container vessels where we envisage no issues with capacity. They tend not to come in on roll-on, roll-off ferries on the backs of lorries through Calais. It is right that there are some concerns about the potential impacts on the all-important Dover-Calais crossing, but they do not specifically affect fertilisers. We see no particular problems in ensuring that we can import the fertilisers we need for this year.
The hon. Lady asked why we cannot simply have an indefinite extension of the recognition of the EC fertiliser logo. The reason is that we have to treat all countries equally under WTO rules. Once we have left the European Union and become an independent country again, we will not be able to discriminate and give unfair privileges to the European Union in the way that she advocates.
The hon. Lady asked a specific question about what had changed in relation to detonation testing. The principal change on strengthening detonation testing is that it will apply to each consignment that comes into the European Union. Put simply, all that importers will need to demonstrate is that each consignment has been subject to a detonation test of a suitable standard within the previous 60 days. At the moment under EU derogations it is possible for that to run longer because they simply apply it to individual batches rather than consignments, so there will be a small change. In the longer term, once the transition has ended, those seeking to export their goods to the United Kingdom would need to have that detonation test done, probably by the Health and Safety Executive in Buxton. We have world-beating expertise in this area and that testing would be done effectively.

Alan Brown: In terms of scaremongering, was the Minister’s boss, the Environment Secretary, scaremongering yesterday when he said that in a no-deal situation he could not guarantee exports and imports would continue at our borders and that livestock exports from the UK would be subject to high tariffs? Was that scaremongering as well?

George Eustice: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was referring to the export of sheep. We all acknowledge—I acknowledge it, too—that border inspection posts would frustrate that trade and that tariffs imposed on sheepmeat exports would affect that trade. He was explicitly not talking about fertiliser imports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was making a very specific point about whether there would be any threats to the import of fertilisers. As most of that trade comes through Harwich, we do not anticipate any problems at all on those grounds.
In conclusion, we have highlighted a number of important areas in this statutory instrument. We have had a thorough debate, but, as I have been at pains to point out, it does not seek to introduce any new policy. In keeping with the spirit and requirements of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it is simply about ensuring that retained EU law is operable on the day after exit. I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Antisemitism in Modern Society

John Bercow: Before I call the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I point out for the benefit of the Front-Bench representatives, of whom there are three for the purposes of this debate, that no fewer than 18 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch the eye of the Chair. I know, therefore, that while addressing the issues fully, they will wish to tailor their contributions to take account of the likely level of Back-Bench demand.

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
That this House has considered antisemitism in modern society.
Today’s debate is timely, given the growing challenge of antisemitism, and fittingly, it comes less than a month since we marked Holocaust Memorial Day and a short few weeks after I had the privilege of joining mourners from around the world to bury six unknown victims of the holocaust—the Shoah—including a child. It was the first time that this has happened on British soil and probably the only time that it will. These were incredibly moving moments not just for the Jewish community, but for our entire country. For me personally, it was a poignant reminder of my father-in-law, who escaped Nazi Germany and came to Britain with the help of the MI6 agent Frank Foley, whose actions also saved the lives of thousands of other Jews. Millions of others were not so lucky. I pay tribute to Members across the House for their powerful testimony and reflections in remembrance of what was one of the darkest chapters in human history. That chapter should have been, as the last of those who lived through it leave us, the final word on the evil of antisemitism and hatred and bigotry in all their forms, but sadly, as the need for today’s debate demonstrates, the oldest hatred is still with us.

Matthew Offord: I wish to say how grateful so many of my constituents who attended that service—as did Lord Pickles and I—were when they saw Government representatives at that event. I did not know what the event would entail. I did not know how many people would attend and I did not even know if I was even invited to the funeral, but it was truly a special event that I certainly will never forget. Many people are very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his attendance on the day.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I certainly endorse his reflections of a very poignant, very powerful and very special moment for us all, and the message that it was able to send about this country’s position and the sense of safety and security that we all want to underline.
For the third year running, the number of antisemitic incidents in the UK is sadly at an all-time high, according to the figures released this month by the Community Security Trust. This equates to 1,652 incidents last year, with over 100 incidents reported in each month for the first time in a single calendar year. The surge of antisemitism online, up 54% on 2017, is a particular area of concern, with the CST finding that almost a quarter of all  reported incidents had an online association—a development that echoes the experiences of other organisations such as Tell MAMA that work to combat Islamophobia.

Ruth Smeeth: I thank the Secretary of State for celebrating the work of CST, which has done extraordinary work to keep many of us safe. The Government currently provide a significant proportion of funding for security guards, on a commercial basis, to support CST’s work and to keep schools safe. Has he considered making that a multi-year grant, rather than a one-year grant, to ensure that political affiliation does not matter and that the Jewish community has assurances that they will be kept safe?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the incredible work of the CST not simply at these memorials and annual events but week in, week out, in schools, synagogues and other places, and the safety and security it conveys in so doing. She will understand that funding decisions are quite germane, particularly given the upcoming spending review, but I understand her call for a multi-year settlement, and I will take that away and reflect on it further. This is about providing assurance and confidence, and I know the difference the CST makes in that regard.
Some of the increase in the number of antisemitic incidents will be down to increased reporting, which we encourage through our hate crime action plan. Similarly, however, a survey carried out by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights in December found that 89% of respondents felt that antisemitism had increased in their countries over the past five years. When asked how big a problem antisemitism was, three quarters of respondents from the UK answered that it was either a “very big” or a “fairly big” problem. I say that with a very heavy heart. It troubles me deeply that some Jewish communities are concerned about their future. It should trouble us all.

Wera Hobhouse: The House will know that through my mother I am of Jewish descent, and in 1938 my uncle found a safe haven in this country. Does the Secretary of State agree it is regrettable that this country might lose its good reputation as a safe haven if we continue with this tendency?

James Brokenshire: I believe that this country is a safe haven. It needs to be that safe haven. It is important that across the House we underline the significance and importance that we as a country attach to that intrinsic value.
On that point, I want to give the following assurance to our Jewish communities: you are an intrinsic part of what makes Britain great, and the Government will always stand by you to challenge bigotry and intolerance. We will not walk by on the other side when that is present. That means learning the lessons of the past and facing up to modern manifestations of antisemitism, which continues to evolve. To quote the former Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks:
“Antisemitism is not a belief but a virus. The human body has an immensely sophisticated immune system which develops defences against viruses. It is penetrated, however, because viruses mutate. Antisemitism mutates.”

Steve McCabe: Does the Secretary of State think it possible that the term “antisemitism” itself is not sufficiently understood in this country and that there are plenty of people who, once they are clear that we are talking about race hatred directed against people who are Jewish, will want to have absolutely nothing to do with it and will want to make no effort to excuse, justify or defend it?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. At its heart, this is racism. That is why it is so intolerable and unacceptable. As the powerful analogy I just used suggests, repelling this insidious threat takes a strong immune system, in the form of leadership at all levels, in all parties and in all areas of public life, and nowhere is this more important than here at the heart of our democracy. It is why we have chosen next door to Parliament as the site for our new national holocaust memorial and learning centre, which commands cross-party support. I believe there can be no more fitting place, no more powerful symbol of our commitment to remembering the men, women and children murdered in the holocaust and all other victims of Nazi persecution, including Roma, gay and disabled people, than placing the memorial in Victoria Tower gardens, literally in the shadow of our Parliament.
In that context, I welcome the cross-party support, which was evidenced today by a joint letter signed by more than 170 Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords endorsing the memorial and the positive and enduring impact it will have. It will draw on the history of the holocaust and subsequent genocides with an education and learning centre at its core as a national resource. It will stand as a national memorial at the heart of our democracy, but equally it will stand as a warning of where hatred can lead; the role that government can play, both good and bad; and what happens if people are bystanders as it develops—what happens if they walk by on the other side. It is not just for future generations, but for us all in Parliament.
It pains me hugely to hear the powerful testimony of colleagues in the House of the abuse they have suffered either for being Jewish or for standing up to antisemitism. Some have even asserted that part of our politics is poisoned by antisemitism in an institutional way. That does not reflect the country we are or the politics for which we stand. Our debate today gives us the chance to say that we reject and oppose antisemitism and to stand together against anyone seeking to advance a narrative of bigotry, hatred and division.
For our part, the Government are taking comprehensive action to fight antisemitism and all forms of hatred. We are proud to have been the first Government to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism in 2016. Although not legally binding, it is an important tool for criminal justice agencies and other public bodies to understand what antisemitism looks like in the 21st century. It covers examples of the kind of behaviours that, depending on the circumstances, could constitute anti- semitism. Those examples include making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective through the myth of a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, or accusing Jewish citizens  of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Those narratives have increasingly poisoned public discourse and we should speak out against them wherever they arise, but aside from pinning down what we mean by antisemitism, the Government’s first priority must be to keep people safe, as underlined by the horrendous events last October in Pittsburgh. That people should be attacked in that way while gathering in prayer is profoundly shocking. To strengthen our determination to ensure that the Jewish community here are safe and feel safe, we continue to support the Community Safety Trust to provide security for Jewish places of worship and institutions. In recognition of the vulnerability felt by all faith communities, the places of worship security grant scheme allows places of worship facing threats to apply for funding to improve their security. To that end, the Government have provided more than £2.4 million to increase security provision for churches, gurdwaras, mosques and temples across the country. We committed further resource for that in the hate crime action plan refresh.
I am hugely conscious of the problems online, which we need to confront further and which I am sure will be a focus of a number of contributions to the debate. We will continue to work to strengthen our approach and confront all types of hate crime to ensure that it is appropriately dealt with. We will soon publish a White Paper on online harms that will consider legislative and non-legislative approaches to combat online hate crime and hate incidents alongside other forms of harmful behaviour.
Our engagement with communities on the ground and education are vital, particularly when it comes to tackling stereotypes and prejudices at an early stage before they harden and become more harmful. That is why we are supporting programmes that work with young people to challenge over-simplified narratives and encourage open conversation.
I want to pay tribute to the outstanding work of our partners. I have already mentioned the CST, whose work to facilitate reporting, to support victims of antisemitism and to provide security for Jewish institutions is vital and greatly appreciated. I want to thank the all-party group against antisemitism, so passionately chaired by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and supported by the Antisemitism Policy Trust. The work of the group ensures there is continued momentum to tackle antisemitism as part of the working group and helps to hold the Government to account. I also want to pay tribute to the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, whose input to the cross-Government working group is invaluable in ensuring the community is properly represented, and to our Haredi stakeholders, including representatives of Shomrim and others, who make sure the specific needs of orthodox communities are not forgotten.
Together, we can and will overcome the challenges we face. Antisemitism has no place in our society—however it evolves, it is still hatred and bigotry—and we should not be afraid to call it out and to champion our Jewish community, which continues to make a towering contribution to our society without reservation. Indeed, Britain would not be what it is without our Jewish friends, neighbours and cousins. That is why in standing  up for them we are standing up for all communities who are facing hatred and for the values of tolerance, freedom and fairness that define us and define our country.
This is a mission bigger than politics—bigger than any party—and it is in that spirit that I urge all hon. Members to be standard-bearers for these values: values that are our best hope of ensuring that when we say, “Never again,” we mean it.

Barry Gardiner: May I just say that I agree with every single word the Secretary of State said? I thought he spoke incredibly powerfully, with great seriousness and with great measurement.
It has always been a mystery to me how anyone can feel themselves honoured by the humiliation of their fellow human beings, yet here we are again in 2019 debating history’s oldest hatred. I am glad to have the opportunity to express my opposition to this unique evil and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for presiding over the debate today on antisemitism in modern society.
Antisemitism has led to some of the worst crimes in human history: pogroms, massacres, oppression, dispossession and of course the holocaust—the systematic and bureaucratic attempt to erase European Jewry from existence. Thirty years ago, in the summer of 1989, I travelled through the Berlin wall into what was then East Germany and on into Poland, where I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is one day in my life I will never forget as the full scale—the industrial scale—of the atrocities and mass murders that were committed there etched themselves into my consciousness. Never before and never since has the world seen such a cold, calculated and industrialised plan for the murder of an entire people.
That Jew hatred—for that is what antisemitism is—still exists should shock us; that it is on the rise should appal us. Antisemitism is a cancer that finds new ways, as the Secretary of State said, to mutate and to infect our political discourse, and it is not enough to be shocked and appalled; we have to act to stop this disease poisoning our society.
Before I go any further, I pay tribute to the work of the Community Security Trust and Shomrim in the Haredi community. Those organisations are tireless in their defence of the Jewish community and its synagogues, businesses, youth clubs and schools.

Lyn Brown: May I also pay tribute to the CST and thank it for the work that it did with us in working out our community cohesion policy? I found it to be an organisation that was very engaged with the wider concerns about racism in our society, and it helped me enormously.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that we all have similar stories to tell about the CST’s work in our constituencies. In my own constituency of Brent North, we have a Jewish community of just under 2,000 people, and we are the home of the Jewish Free School, which is one of the oldest Jewish institutions in the UK and the largest and most academically successful Jewish school in all Europe. I worked with Arnold Wagner and David Lerner to help the school to move  from its old home in Camden to the purpose-built facilities in my community. I particularly want to thank the CST for all that it does to keep the pupils and staff there, and in all the other primary schools, safe. I just wish, as we all do, that its work was not necessary.
The CST does more than work on safety. Its work to record and analyse antisemitic hate crime is integral to our understanding of the scale of the problem that faces us. Last year, it recorded 23 antisemitic incidents in my borough of Brent alone, and 1,652 across the country. That makes for sober reading. Antisemitism is at a record high, with a 16% rise in incidents nationwide year on year and 100 incidents every month. This is the lived reality of our Jewish fellow citizens living under the strain of antisemitism. It is appalling—the arson attacks on synagogues, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, the neo-Nazi graffiti on posters for Holocaust Memorial Day, the vandalising of centres of Jewish life, the physical attacks on Jewish children at their schools or on public transport, swastikas daubed on Jewish homes and antisemitic hate mail sent to Jewish workplaces and schools. These hideous crimes are a warning to us all. We must do better, and we must be better.
That brings me to the issues facing my own party, the Labour party. It was the Labour party that introduced the Race Relations Acts and the Equality Act 2010, and it has put fighting inequality, racism and prejudice at the core of who we are and what we believe in. How can it be that we are struggling so badly to eradicate antisemitism from our own membership? I joined the Labour party because I believed it was quite simply the best vehicle for progressive social change in this country. I still do, but no party has a monopoly on virtue, and in the Labour party we are learning a bitter lesson. For all the strength and passion that we have derived from the mass influx of new members that has seen our party grow to more than 500,000 strong, we have not had adequate procedures in place to react swiftly and decisively to that small minority of members who have expressed sometimes ignorant but often vicious, dangerous and vile antisemitic views.
On behalf of my party, I want to publicly apologise to the Jewish community that we have let them down. We know it and we are trying to do better. We are trying to become the party that we have always aspired to be. We will not stop working until we once again become a safe and welcoming political home for people from the Jewish community, as from every other. The Secretary of State said that we stand here today to say of antisemitism that we reject it. We do. We must.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making an important point, but the reality is that words, however sincerely meant, must be matched with action. Does he agree that it is completely unacceptable to have, for example, elected Labour representatives saying things like, “The Jewish community have got it all in their own heads.”? He gave us examples of the reality of antisemitism affecting communities, and I have seen it with my own eyes in my communities in Cardiff. It is not “in their own heads.” Neo-Nazi and far-right activity are real and hateful, and we must stand aqgainst them unequivocally.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not understand how the people who say the things that he quotes can, with any integrity, think that they belong to our party.

Neil Coyle: What message does my hon. Friend think is sent to the Jewish community when the Labour party readmits Derek Hatton, who tweeted something that seemed to imply that every Jew, wherever they live in the world, is responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government? Does he share my view that Derek Hatton has no part to play in our Labour party?

Barry Gardiner: This morning, I saw the reports that I am sure my hon. Friend saw about not just the readmission of Derek Hatton, but the tweets that he mentions, and I wrote to the general secretary of our party and lodged a formal complaint. I understand that action has since been taken in respect of the complaint, and I will be looking out to see precisely what appropriate action is taken in due course. I totally agree that it was a travesty. I think many of us knew for some while that Derek Hatton had applied to rejoin the party, but it was appalling for the news of his readmission to come to public attention on the very day when some members of our party were forced out.

Stella Creasy: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Gardiner: I will in a minute, but I want to make a little progress.
We recognise that social media can be a tremendous tool, enabling a more democratic and open media, but too often it has become the fertile breeding ground for antisemitic trolling and bullying. We have seen that in the horrifying antisemitic and misogynistic abuse targeted at several of our MPs, and I want to speak specifically about the disgraceful treatment of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). I deeply regret that she has left our party, but I regret most of all the antisemitic abuse that made her feel that it was necessary to do so. I have not always shared her political judgments, but she is a strong and principled woman and a kind and loving person, who has been bullied by antisemites to a point at which most of us would not have had the strength to bear it. I wish that she had stayed to help us defeat the evil in our party, but whichever party we stand for in this Parliament, she should have our unqualified solidarity as she stands against her aggressors.

Louise Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am listening carefully to what he says. Why does he think that the Labour party allowed the antisemitic bullying of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) to continue? He has expressed concern about it, but it is the Labour party that allowed it to continue. The problem is with Labour party members, not the people of Liverpool.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Indeed, it is those who have bullied my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree who will have to answer for it. I hope the processes within our party will be able to deal with that.

Stella Creasy: I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that we have let down the Jewish community. We have lost a very good colleague because we failed to stop what was essentially constructive dismissal. Does he agree that this is not about asking our Jewish members to stay and sort it out? In a movement built on solidarity, it is for us all to act. In this instance, the concern that many of us have is that there are so many cases outstanding, yet time was found to deal with Mr Hatton’s application for readmission. We want to show that we are serious about this, and we must change our priorities and deal with these cases now.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are responsible for dealing with this. She will know there are procedures and committees within the national executive committee that deal with complaints and others that deal with other processes.
Let me be clear that anyone who denies the reality of antisemitism on the left, anyone who thinks that antisemitism is a legitimate part of criticising the political actions of the Israeli Government and anyone who says that complaints about antisemitism are smears on our party is wrong. They do not have the endorsement of the Labour party;they do not have the endorsement of its leader; and they need to take a long, hard look at themselves. They have adopted what Bebel labelled the “socialism of fools.”
Our party must call out this poisonous ideology, which encourages people to place the blame for society’s ills at the feet of the vulnerable and persecuted, whether they be immigrants, the unemployed, refugees or those from a different ethnic or religious background. The Labour party has long fought the dissemination of such false narratives, which we know serve only to divide us and distract us from our common cause of a fairer society.
Antisemitism, with its conspiracy theories, seeks to divide ordinary working people. The lies that it propagates about wealth, power and designs on world domination are as dangerous as they are stupid. Those on the far left who are foolish enough to believe that their antisemitism is a form of anti-elitism or anti-imperialism have no place in the Labour party or any modern political party.
Last year, a major study analysing news stories across the English-speaking world found that, according to every metric, fake news is more popular and more widely consumed than factual, accurate stories. We truly live in an era of fake news and imagined enemies, where explicit abuse hides behind anonymous avatars and where political debate is shaped by memes and viral videos. The rise of fake news is dangerous for is all, but this danger is most acute for the Jewish community and it is felt intensely. There are approximately 170,000 antisemitic online searches each year in the UK alone, but the scale of the challenge must not daunt us or deter us from what needs to be done.

John Mann: Over the last 16 years, I have written repeatedly to every single party here today to raise specific issues, with great success across every single party. In every single instance, I have written to the relevant party leader. Does my hon. Friend accept that people are interested in the structures, in the machinations of those structures and in leadership? What leadership will the Labour shadow Cabinet specifically give to Jewish members of the Labour party and to the Jewish community?

Barry Gardiner: Quite simply, my hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to the work he has done for many, many years; it is for our shadow Cabinet, as it is indeed incumbent on us all in this party, to ensure that we have the processes in place to eradicate this poison from our party. If we look at what took place in our party recently after the change in leadership, we see that the number of places on the committee concerned, the national constitutional committee, had to double to deal with the cases that were there; new processes were introduced so that we could speed up dealing with the number of cases that were there. That is the process that is going to take place, but he is right to say that it is not just about process—it is not. It is about leadership and politics, and making sure that we get the message out there into the wider society that wherever this happens it is unacceptable and will be dealt with. Yes, it will be dealt with by the proper process, but the outcomes at the end of that process must be the right ones.

Ruth Smeeth: rose—

Barry Gardiner: I will give way, but it will be for the last time.

Ruth Smeeth: Does my hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for making this speech, agree that any other leader of the Labour party would have instructed people to be expelled?

Barry Gardiner: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on that point because it is for the national executive to take that decision—

George Howarth: Would my hon. Friend, who invoked the national executive committee of the party, of which I am a member, like to give way?

John Bercow: If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the intervention, we will then hear the content of it. Does he wish to do so?

Barry Gardiner: I will, of course, take, as I said before, one final intervention.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As a member of the Labour party’s NEC, may just say three things? First, we have been far too slow to deal with some appalling cases of antisemitism. Secondly, I do not know whether it has been formally announced yet, but Lord Falconer has offered his services to look at how we can deal more effectively with such cases that are brought to the attention of the party. Thirdly, on a purely personal view, I agree with the comment made a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) that, frankly, there is no place for any of these people in the Labour party. Sending them on courses is not good enough; they need to be kicked out.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I am glad he has been able to talk about the progress that the NEC is making. I believe that more progress will be coming in terms of education, but it has not been formalised at this stage.
It is important to recognise that the antisemitic views harboured by those people, a small minority within Labour, do not exist in a vacuum. No political party  should fool itself that it is immune from this poison, and it would be wrong and dangerous to underestimate the scale of the problem across society at large. A few weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, a survey revealed that 5% of British adults do not believe the holocaust took place and one in 12 believe that its scale has been exaggerated. Clearly, something has gone deeply wrong with our education and our collective memory. The holocaust was the worst crime of the 20th century, in which 6 million Jewish people were murdered. Every single person in Britain should know that. I thank the Holocaust Educational Trust and Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for the work they do to ensure that this atrocity is never forgotten and never repeated.

Jonathan Djanogly: rose—

Barry Gardiner: I am not taking any more interventions, as I said.
It is only through education that we will protect future generations from falling into these insidious falsehoods—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Mr Ivan Lewis, calm yourself, young man. I am sure what you are saying is absolutely fascinating—riveting stuff—but we would prefer to hear you on your feet in due course, rather than from your seat. Do the Front Bencher the courtesy of hearing him.

Barry Gardiner: It is only through education that we will protect future generations from falling into insidious falsehoods and conspiracy theories. I had the privilege of hearing Gena Turgel, the holocaust survivor who was known as the bride of Belsen, speak to a group of children at JFS school a few years ago. She was the most wonderful, humane and powerful voice, educating successive generations about the horrors of antisemitism. I simply record with sadness her passing since our previous debate on antisemitism in this Chamber last year.
Those horrors are not yet a distant memory. Our colleague Lord Alf Dubs was one of the children who came to this country as part of the Kindertransport, which brought 10,000 Jewish children to safety in Britain. Alf’s work, both at the Refugee Council and in setting up safe passage for refugee children today, is just one example of the legacy that survivors have bequeathed to this country.
It is now 80 years on from Kristallnacht and we must amplify the voices of people like Alf, Gena Turgel and other holocaust survivors as they share their stories and educate the next generation. The holocaust happened. It counts as one of the greatest crimes in human history. This January, in Bushey, I was with the Secretary of State when 1,200 mourners attended the burial of those six unknown Jews—five adults, one child—murdered at Auschwitz. Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis spoke powerfully at the funeral, saying:
“We need a strong reminder such as this to let us know what can result, even within a democratic society, what can result if anti-Semitism, if racism and xenophobia, go unchecked.”
Looking around the world, it is clear that to tackle this evil we must adopt an internationalist approach. A survey published by the European Union in December found that almost nine out of 10 European Jewish  people feel that antisemitism has worsened in their respective countries over the past five years. Right-wing nationalist politics continues its forward march, with devastating consequences for minority communities. In France, the torching of synagogues and assaults on Jewish people on the Metro have resulted in thousands of Jewish people leaving for Israel.
The horrendous mass shooting of Jewish congregants at the Pittsburgh Tree of Life was the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in American history, and watching far-right protesters in Charlottesville chant “The Jews will not replace us” was quite simply chilling.
Last year, the Polish Government introduced legislation that reads:
“Whoever claims…that the Polish Nation…is responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich…shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to 3 years.”
That is an attempt to whitewash the holocaust.
Viktor Orbán’s Government in Hungary has deployed antisemitic rhetoric, and their campaign against George Soros has invoked obvious antisemitic tropes. I shall not talk about the support that the Hungarian Government received in the European Parliament, because the Secretary of State set the tone for the debate, which is that antisemitism is something that we need to tackle from every corner of this Parliament.
I thank all colleagues from all parties who are here to express their solidarity with the Jewish community. To all who may be listening and paying attention, I would like to say something very clearly: when Jewish people express their concerns about antisemitism, regardless of their background, their beliefs or where they sit on the political spectrum, they must be listened to. Their anxieties are genuine—they are real—and they should be a cause of concern for every person, for every socialist and for every anti-racist in this country. In this place, we create laws to solve the fundamental question of how, with all our differences, we can live together.
I wish to conclude by reading the words of one of Israel’s greatest poets, Yehuda Amichai. He said:
“Once I sat on the steps by a gate at David’s Tower, I placed my two heavy baskets at my side. A group of tourists was standing around their guide and I became their target marker. ‘You see that man with the baskets? Just right of his head there’s an arch from the Roman period. Just right of his head.’ ‘But he’s moving, he’s moving!’ I said to myself: redemption will come only if their guide tells them, ‘You see that arch from the Roman period? It’s not important: but next to it, left and down a bit, there sits a man who’s bought fruit and vegetables for his family.’”
Once we can stop seeing the race, the religion, the colour of the skin, and to see through the man or the woman, perhaps we will rid our world of antisemitism, wherever it is found.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. There is no time limit yet, but I hope that colleagues will be sensitive to my determination to accommodate every would-be speaker in the debate. I call Guto Bebb.

Guto Bebb: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I commend the speech of the Secretary of State, which I applaud and agree with fully, and I welcome the comments from  the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), too. It is not for me to comment on what is going on in the Labour party, but suffice it to say that what is happening to our politics and to some Members of this House as a result of antisemitism stains us all. We should all offer solidarity to those Members who have been affected by vile and disgusting abuse, whether online or in person. I have nothing but admiration for hon. Members in this place who are standing up to those threats and doing so with dignity, which shows why they have been elected to this place. I congratulate them all, whether they are in the Labour party or not, for the stand they are taking. They have the support of those of us on the Government Benches.
This is a cross-party issue. One reason I wanted to speak in the debate was that back in 2013, I joined the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism. I represent a small constituency in North Wales—I think it is the smallest constituency in population terms represented by a Conservative MP—and I have a very small Jewish community. I felt that the issue was coming to the fore, however, and I decided to join the APPG. That has been the most informative and valuable work that I have done in Parliament, as well as some of the most depressing. I pay tribute to the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for his leadership of that effort and for the opportunities he has afforded to somebody such as myself.
Back in 2013, one of the few Jewish members of my constituency was elected mayor of Conwy, and I remember having a lot of fun at the fact that Edward I, when he gave Conwy its town charter, stated that no Jews and no Welsh would be allowed to live within the town walls. It gave me a certain degree of pride that Conwy had a Conservative Jewish mayor and a Conservative MP who is as Welsh as Welsh can be.
The APPG gave me the opportunity to see the virus of antisemitism. I went to Amsterdam with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, and I was absolutely shocked by what I saw. Back in 2014, when we were preparing a report on antisemitism, we went to a Jewish high school in Amsterdam, a city that I would consider to be a liberal city in Europe. We met a group of sixth formers, the same age as my children, and asked them a simple question, “How many of you, in a class of 22, see a future for yourselves in Europe?” One hand went up in that classroom—one single hand. If that does not shame us as Europeans, I am not sure what does.

Bob Stewart: Something bright is happening in Sarajevo. There are 1,000 Jews in Sarajevo—10,000 were killed by the Ustaše, the Croatian fascists, in the war. These 1,000 Jews consider their home, Sarajevo, to be the safest place for a Jew in Europe. Is that not amazing, colleagues, when we think what happened there just 20 years ago?

Guto Bebb: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Obviously, it is good to hear that there are good news stories out there.
I undertook my second visit as part of the APPG to Brussels, with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). We visited another Jewish school. Imagine my horror, when we drove down that street in Brussels, the capital of the European Union, to be faced with armoured personnel vehicles, protecting  that school. It is very difficult to convey the shock that one feels as a parent when one sees that kind of thing happening on the streets of the capital city of the European Union.
As a result of that work, we produced a report in 2015; I think, Mr Speaker, you were there at Lambeth Palace for its launch. One success that I achieved as part of that effort was to ensure that the radio station in Wales—Radio Wales—decided to cover the launch, because in me, as a Welsh MP, they had someone willing to talk on radio about the issue. I was struck by the fact that the reporters who visited Jewish communities in constituencies such as that of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) were taken aback by what they found. What we had noted in Amsterdam and Brussels was starting to infect the capital city of Wales and other cities across the United Kingdom. What I had seen in Amsterdam and Brussels as something new and strange, shockingly was affecting the very Jewish communities that we represent as MPs—whether in Wales, England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. That report was an important piece of work because it highlighted the need to change. We should take the APPG’s contribution in that respect very seriously.
Unfortunately, even though that report was produced in 2015, the situation has got worse. I am not sure how we explain the virus that has infected social media and our political discourse. I am not going to stand here and say that it is all the fault of the Corbynista takeover of the Labour party, because there are problems on both sides of the political equation. We must deal with a fundamental issue—the way in which the discourse on social media has been so badly polluted by this age-old hatred. There is a responsibility on us all, especially those in positions of leadership in any political party in the Chamber, to take those issues seriously. It is simply unacceptable, when members of political parties are identified as being responsible for this hate speech on social media and in person, that they are not thrown beyond the pale of our politics.

Stephen Doughty: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that, unfortunately, what we are seeing on social media is a swamp in which everything else breeds, and whether that is going on in my party or in society more generally, it gives rise to some serious and violent behaviour? Does he agree that groups like System Resistance Network—neo-Nazi organisations operating in Wales, targeting Jews, Muslims, gays and the police—need to be proscribed and dealt with, and that Twitter, still hosting an account called Radio Arian that broadcasts neo-Nazi ideology, needs to take action today to remove it?

Guto Bebb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. One of the APPG’s current work programmes deals with the behaviour of social media companies, such as Facebook. We all know that they have a responsibility, and it is imperative that we speak with one voice on that issue. How much more important it is, however, that we face those social media companies knowing that we have put our own house in order. So I fully agree with those comments, but we must do more.
I highlighted the fact that this issue does not just face one party in this place. Part of the Jewish conspiracy issue, which appears online, is the detachment from reality of those conspiracy theories. Nothing illustrates  that better than a rather vile piece of work that has appeared online, entitled, “A Very Jewish Coup: The Plot to Stop Brexit.” It is really shocking. Mr Speaker, you are named as an individual who is part of the plot, as are my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). They are all highlighted as part of a Jewish plot to stop Brexit. That is utterly vile and unacceptable. It is also nonsense, because another individual highlighted as part of that plot is none other than my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole. Now, we are good friends, but on Brexit we do not agree. However, I would be hard-pressed to categorise my hon. Friend as an individual who is devoting his time in this place to stopping Brexit. That is the point—truth has nothing to do with anti semitism, which is about hatred, inadequacy and attacking others for being different. That is the key point about this vile piece of work. It is an attack on others simply to justify political views that are unacceptable.

Emma Little Pengelly: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem is that on social media people can hide behind an anonymous handle and can spread this type of vile abuse—lies and untruths—and bounce off one another? One of the things that social media companies could do to prevent that from happening is identify who these people are so that when these things are reported to the police, they can be prosecuted and banned from social media sites.

Guto Bebb: Once again, I agree with the sentiments that the hon. Lady has expressed. That was taken up with some social media companies on a recent visit by the all-party parliamentary group to Washington, so I subscribe to that comment.
Clearly, we have a problem, but there are good news stories out there. I want to touch on one of them, although it is tinged with a degree of regret. In my constituency, our holocaust memorial event, which takes place every year, has gone from strength to strength. It has been one of the greatest privileges in my time as Member of Parliament for Aberconwy to welcome holocaust survivor after holocaust survivor to speak at these events. It is not just one event on a Sunday evening with 300 or 350 people turning up. The organisers ensure that the speakers visit local schools on the following Monday and Tuesday, and the feedback from those schools has been absolutely phenomenal. The opportunity to speak to someone who survived the holocaust will never be forgotten by the young people of my constituency.
This year, for the first time ever, the holocaust memorial event in Llandudno highlighted not only the historical tragedy of the holocaust but invited a group of Jewish people from Manchester and their rabbi to highlight the threat that they face in 2019, in Manchester, in the United Kingdom. I have to say, listening to the comments of a Hungarian survivor of the holocaust, then listening to fellow citizens from Manchester on the same evening, was a truly shocking experience. If we have not learned anything, it is shame on us all.
Finally—and this is a point for my Front Benchers—the holocaust survivor from Hungary, Susan Pollack, spoke passionately. She was an 86-year-old lady, and she said at the event:
“We could not escape. We did not have passports. We had lost our passports. They had been taken away from us.”
That really made me think very hard about freedom of movement, because there are Jewish schools in London where a significant proportion of the pupils are French by birth. Their families have opted to escape what is going on in France at this point in time. I would say to Ministers that when we talk about curtailing freedom of movement, we should be very aware of what freedom we are giving up in relation to the history of Europe in the 20th century.
It has been a pleasure to speak in the debate. It is a shame that we need to have this type of debate in the United Kingdom in 2019, but we do need it, and we need to carry on working as parliamentarians to make sure that this virus, which is a plague on our politics and on our communities, is dealt with.

Stewart McDonald: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). Although some time has passed since his resignation from the Government, this is the first chance I think I have had to say to him in the Chamber that Defence questions are not the same without him. His contribution was heartfelt and welcome, as indeed was the tone set by the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate. I should acknowledge, not least because he is a fellow Glaswegian, the tone struck by the shadow Secretary of State.
It is somewhat depressing, as the hon. Member for Aberconwy has said, that we are debating antisemitism for the second time in less than 12 months, and we are doing so against the backdrop of Members of this very Parliament feeling that they have to leave their political party because of antisemitism. Although I have no desire to tread on the broader political grief of the Labour party, I will single out, if I may—I did not tell her beforehand that I would do this—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). Having looked at some of the vile poison that she has put up with, I can tell her that she has the solidarity of Scottish National party Members and our admiration for the way in which she has stood up to it.
In the previous debate on antisemitism, I was able to say, in setting out the history of antisemitism in Scotland, that we are one of the few countries, if not the only country, never to have had an antisemitic law on the statute book. Indeed, the declaration of Arbroath, which is understood to be the most ancient medieval text in existence, specifically refers to Jews and gentiles as equal. To bring things a bit more up to date, I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government have accepted in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.
I do not want to deceive Members into thinking that all is well and rosy north of the border, because the sad fact is that it is not. I thank Joel Salmon from the Board of Deputies of British Jews for the briefing he has given me, with some specific key figures on what is going on in Scotland. There have been 21 recorded incidents of antisemitism in the past year. Although that may not seem like a huge number, it does not feel all that small to Scotland’s Jewish population, given how small it is.
I want to read out a few examples of what has happened in the past 12 months. A brick was thrown at a glass door on a synagogue, but thanks to their foresight  in expecting something like that to happen, a non-smash coating had been put on the glass so it did not shatter on that occasion. In another example, a woman who was converting to Judaism was spat at in the face while being called a Jew on a bus in Edinburgh.
In possibly the most vile of the examples sent to me, a Jewish organisation in Scotland received the following email:
“I’m going to kill every single one of you ugly rat-faced kikes. I think I’ll use a knife. Then after I’ve cut you, I’ll shut that dirty, filthy, lying Jew mouth of yours once and for all. Make sure you have a good hiding place ready. I’m gonna stick your children into an oven and then I’m gonna serve roasted kike to my dog. Good luck finding, you worthless piece of shit.”
I will not read out the rest, as though that was not bad enough.
A few weeks ago, the front page of the Sunday Herald featured a story about the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities highlighting the deep problem of antisemitism that too often plagues elements of Scottish society. Too many responded to that story with conspiracy theories or by saying that somehow that could not happen in Scotland or that the Jews were complaining about nothing. That is rubbish. As with any other minority community, when the Jewish community complains about being the victim of hatred and highlights it on the front page of a national newspaper, any decent person would respond by extending a hand of friendship.

Wera Hobhouse: Is it not the case that we are all responsible for this problem? Sometimes we just say, “Oh, these sorts of things exist,” but we do not stand up enough and we do not say loudly enough, each time, that this is totally unacceptable.

Stewart McDonald: I completely agree with the hon. Lady. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned when he intervened on the Secretary of State at the start of the debate, there is perhaps a misunderstanding about how bad it actually is to be called an antisemite. I think the hon. Gentleman is right that the term perhaps feels a little too gentle sometimes. The Secretary of State himself said that people should be confronted with the fact that it is Jew hate. Let us put it to people in those stark terms, and then I think they can understand exactly what they are being accused of.
I want to draw the House’s attention to a school, Calderwood Lodge, which is actually just outside my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton). This is a brilliant example of bringing together children of different faiths to better understand people from those faiths. Calderwood Lodge is the first joint Catholic and Jewish school anywhere in the world, and I encourage all hon. Members, if they get the chance, to visit it.
In thinking, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) just said, about how we get young people and others to better understand the problems and understand that this is a problem for us all, I reflect on what my own mother chose to do. My own mother, when I was in my early teens, gave me a copy of the book “The Five Chimneys”, written by Olga Lengyel, a survivor of Auschwitz, and that book has stayed with me forever. I have read it a great many times, and I will probably give the book to my own nephew when he is of an age to take in the horrors of the holocaust.
That brings me to something that had never actually crossed my mind before. About this time last year, I was very kindly invited to dinner at my vet’s house. My vet, who looks after my cat very well, is himself Jewish, and he invited me and my partner, Gordon, to come and have dinner with his family, which we duly did. This had not even occurred to me, but when we were there and we got talking around the table about antisemitism, he had to explain to me that he had not yet told his young daughters what the holocaust was and did not quite know how to approach it or at what time. It was not until I was in the car afterwards that I said to my partner, “How do you even begin to explain to your children that they belong to a faith that has been hunted in the way that Jewish people have over time?”
I want to draw my remarks to a close because I am conscious of time, and many hon. Members want to speak, so I will end with this. I was heartened, and at the same time quite depressed, to see the scenes last night from Paris, where a great number of people took to the Place de la République, rising up against antisemitism in France. The Chief Rabbi of France, Haïm Korsia, put it perfectly, in outlining the challenge for us all not just here but around the world, when he asked in Paris last night
“who must lower their eyes? The anti-Semites or the Jews?”
Let us flip that question around: who is it who gets to raise their eyes? I preferred the days when antisemites and racists felt ashamed and they kept their eyes to the ground. But when the Jew raises her eyes, what will she be confronted with? Will she be confronted with love or hate, friendship or hate, solidarity or hate, understanding or the ignorance that drives the hate we are trying to drive out of our society today? The Jew is looking up at this debate today, and although I suspect we will all speak with one voice, as we should, against antisemitism, what will happen when the Mace is lifted up? Will we all go back to our constituencies with a hand genuinely held out and renewed in our desire for friendship and in our desire to drive out antisemitism from society, or will we have a lot of warm words and not very much by the way of action? I sincerely hope not.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. We will begin with a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, but I warn colleagues that I suspect that will not last for long.

Theresa Villiers: Like everyone in this debate, I want to emphasise that antisemitism is completely unacceptable—whether it comes from the hard right or the radical left—and it is utterly unforgivable if it permeates a mainstream political party. I also want to say that I rise with regret to make this speech, which is not one I ever thought I would have to make. It is deeply regrettable that we are all here to talk about this issue once again, but I feel I have to speak out about the current situation.
I found it truly shocking when, in September last year, the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna)—then, of course, one of Labour’s own MPs—stated that the party’s problem with antisemitism had become so serious that it had passed the threshold and could be considered institutionally racist.
It is deeply disturbing that concern about problems with antisemitism in Labour are now so disturbing to the Jewish community that they felt the need to come to Parliament Square to protest about it. In many conversations I have had on the doorstep in my constituency of Chipping Barnet about this issue, a significant number of constituents have told me that they are making active preparations to leave the country if Labour wins the next general election. That is an appalling and unacceptable state of affairs.
In the debate last April in this Chamber, it was harrowing to hear about the abuse, threats and hatred to which colleagues such as the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) have been subjected. The fact that much of it appeared to be coming from their own party members and supporters was all the more shocking.
I believe that that powerful debate should have been a turning point—a point at which the Labour leadership gripped the problem and took action to rid the party of this poison. Yet it took another four months of wrangling before they actually managed to adopt the internationally recognised definition of antisemitism overseen by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. What was the cause of that prevarication and foot-dragging? Attempts by the Leader of the Opposition to preserve the right of Labour activists to call Israel “a racist endeavour”.
The leadership of the Jewish community is clear that much more effective action is needed. The Board of Deputies recently reiterated its disappointment at the lack of leadership on this matter shown by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Indeed, there are many who doubt the Labour leader’s commitment on this issue. He is, after all, the person who once accused “Zionists” of having
“no sense of English irony, despite having lived here all their lives”.
He is the person who attended a ceremony that appeared to commemorate the Black September terrorists who slaughtered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. He defended an artist whose mural featured obviously antisemitic imagery. He has shared platforms with and promoted a number of antisemites, including inviting the blood libel antisemitic conspiracy theorist Shaikh Raed Salah to this Parliament. Mr Salah is a man who has described Jewish people as “monkeys” and “bacteria”, yet the right hon. Member for Islington North chose to describe him as “a very honoured citizen”.
Those may be past episodes, but the present response of the Labour leadership to the antisemitism crisis in their party continues to be inadequate. The right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) set that out in her devastating resignation statement. Pointing out that it is three years since the Labour leadership pledged to tackle the issue, she said:
“At every turn, it has resisted, ignored and snubbed the legitimate demands of the Jewish community”.
She went on to say that the Labour leadership have “offered white-wash reports” and
“operated a revolving door disciplinary policy”.
She concluded:
“it has allowed its surrogates to belittle the scale of the problem and attack those who try to bring it to light.”
Even the deputy leader of Labour, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), has said that he sometimes does not seem to recognise his own party:
“We know in our hearts we have been too slow to respond to the shaming scourge of antisemitism in our ranks.”
This week, eight MPs who have spent decades in Labour left their party, and their criticism was damning. They describe a party
“hijacked by the machine politics of the hard left”,
where a message of optimism has been replaced by
“an all-consuming narrative founded on rage, betrayal and the hunt for heretics”.
The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes)—someone whom I had always seen as being as Labour as Labour could possibly be—said he was sickened that the Labour party had now become a racist, antisemitic party. I believe he was right to be sickened and gravely concerned by what has happened to the official Opposition —so, too, am I; so, too, are many of my constituents. That is why decisive action is needed now to put this right, so we can see antisemitism driven out of British politics forever. Enough is enough.

Margaret Hodge: I rise to speak feeling a mixture of anger and anguish: anger at the shocking increase in antisemitic incidents in our country, and anger at the abject failure of the Labour leadership to root out the cancer of antisemitism within our party; anguish because of the stuff of antisemitism, whether online, verbal or physical, constitutes an unspeakably dreadful stain on our society, and anguish because my colleagues, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), both of whom have dedicated themselves to fighting antisemitism, feel that they can no longer stay in the Labour party and work with Labour MPs, both Jews and non-Jews, to eradicate antisemitism from our party.
It just beggars belief that on the very day the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree chose to leave the Labour party Derek Hatton was readmitted. This is a slight deviation, but I knew Derek Hatton in the 1980s. A leading member of Militant, he holds bigoted views and never believed in consistency between what he said and what he did. I remember a meeting of rate-capped councils when he harangued the leader of one council who had told us his council was going to set a rate that night. Hatton accused the man of betraying the working classes by complying with the law. I was fed up with his hypocrisy, because that was precisely what Hatton had done the previous year. When I told him to be quiet, he turned on me and shouted, “If it’s too hot for you Margaret, get back in the kitchen.”
To return to the debate, I never ever thought that my Jewish identity would be central to my political work. I have always been secular. I arrived as an immigrant with my family at the age of four. We were not active in the Jewish community, although all our family friends were also Jewish refugees. But like so many other Jews, I lost family in the holocaust. In recent years, as my sisters trawled through family letters and diaries, that family history became more vivid and poignant for me. I read a letter from my aunt—after fleeing, she found herself in France—that she sent to Marshal Pétain, pleading with him to release her husband who had been taken from their home in the Ardèche:
“He is only a number to you. He is everything to me.”
Her husband, my uncle, was later murdered in Auschwitz.
At Auschwitz, years later, I walked into a room filled with luggage and was confronted with a battered suitcase bearing his initials. I read my grandfather’s diaries and heard the despair he expressed as he visited his parents’ graves in Vienna for the last time before fleeing the Nazis. And most painful of all, I read my grandmother’s last letter, written to her son, my uncle, nine days before she was shot in a trench outside a concentration camp, in which she twice says, “Don’t forget me completely.”
Stamping out antisemitism matters. We must never shirk our shared responsibility to prevent such horrors from happening again. We ignore the present increase in antisemitism incidents at our peril: a 16% rise, as others have said; the third year in a row that figures have reached an all-time high; a 54% increase in just one year in antisemitic abuse on social media. Complacency, denial, the shifting of blame on to others—all that is unacceptable.
This is not about weaponising racism for political advantage, an accusation that makes me profoundly angry. Likewise, for some people to claim that those fighting antisemitism are simply protecting the Netanyahu regime in Israel is deeply insulting and utterly wrong. I often criticise the actions of successive Israeli Governments where I feel that is justified, but legitimate criticism of a foreign Government should never morph into racist abuse against all Jews, as it too often does.
The increase in antisemitism comes from both the left and the right. On the right, CST analysis tells us that one in four of the incidents of recorded abuse involved language used by the far right, but under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), a platform has also been given for antisemitism, which was always present on the hard-left fringes, but has now moved into the mainstream of my party. That is why we have experienced a surge in abuse against us—abuse particularly targeted against female Jewish MPs.
I have seen the internal Labour party documents leaked to LBC that formed the agenda for one single meeting of the group tasked with investigating allegations of antisemitic abuse, and I congratulate LBC on doggedly pursuing this story. There are 47 antisemitic allegations in these documents against Labour party members. The evidence of abuse is shocking. I quote:
“He needs to check out the love fest between the Zionists and the Nazis.
People are finding out how much power Jews have. They seem to have a lot of power over the main opposition party. Might they rebel if…the reason they didn’t get a job or a home was because a Jew got it.
You are paid by Israel to destabilise UK Labour.
A Zionist plot to oust Jeremy Corbyn.
A swastika is appropriate as Israel is a fascist state.”
Some of the abuse is directed at Members of this House. LBC gave the file to Mak Chishty, who ran the hate crime unit for the Metropolitan police until 2017. He identified 17 cases that he judged were “race hate incidents” and four cases that crossed the threshold for criminal investigation. It took three months for the Crown Prosecution Service to give the police the go-ahead just for a criminal investigation. Will the Government urgently inquire into why this delay occurred and will  they also provide me with written assurance that the delay will not result in cases being dropped because they run out of time?
The documents leaked to LBC covered less than 50 cases. The Labour party has received hundreds and hundreds of complaints, yet only 12 individuals have been expelled from the party since April. I could have identified more than that from the one set of papers I saw. This tells me that the leader of the Labour party is not demanding zero tolerance of antisemitism in our ranks. Until he does, I and other members of the party will continue to call it out fearlessly, loudly and persistently.
Trust between the leader, his staff, Labour headquarters and Back-Bench Labour MPs has now broken down completely. I have absolutely no confidence in the integrity of the data that the party has provided concerning its progress. I submitted a dossier of abusive communications. The only communication that I have received back is a letter from a party member—about whom I had complained —in which he says of my complaint:
“I can’t tell you how pathetic I think this is of you, going crying to the complaints department when someone says they don’t like you.”
He had accused me of “hysterically abusing Corbyn” to advance my own agenda and had said that Jewish people in this country are not victims of anything and that I was a nasty, dishonest person. The level of care provided to MPs by the party is so pathetic that the only response one gets to complaining about antisemitic abuse is further abuse from the culprit.
This week, two Labour MPs quit the Labour party, mainly because they think the party is institutionally antisemitic. I understand and respect their decision and mourn their departure. I joined the Labour party 56 years ago because it was the natural home for Jews, with its proud tradition of fighting racism, promoting equality and fostering tolerance. I do not yet want to give up the fight for the heart and soul of a party I have worked for and with throughout my adult life. The leader of the Labour party must really listen, must really understand and must really change. If he does not do so, he will be culpable for sabotaging the values that led to the creation of the Labour party and responsible for the withering away of a once great political force.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. The limit on Back-Bench speeches is reduced to eight minutes with immediate effect.

Andrew Percy: It is a pleasure to follow the powerful speech of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). It is also an honour to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who made an excellent speech. We have been great friends since I made a speech here against tuition fees in 2010. He told me I was wrong then and has not stopped telling me I am wrong about Brexit, but we have been great friends even since, and on this issue, as on so many others, we have worked together closely. I join him in paying tribute to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for the work he has done chairing our all-party group on antisemitism, often in the face of abuse and, sadly recently, of threats and abuse against his nearest and dearest. He deserves great credit for his work.
I want to start on the good news. As this debate is demonstrating, most people in this country are decent, tolerant and open-minded, and that is proven, I think, by surveys in recent years. The annual Eurobarometer has consistently shown that Britain is one of the most tolerant societies in Europe, with some of the most positive views on immigration. We should never forget that that is how most people in this country feel and think.
That is the good news. The bad news, as many Members have said, is the rise of antisemitism in our country. I share the growing concern and alarm. The statistics that the Secretary of State laid out—I will not lay them out again—should shame us all in this House, on whatever side, as should the views of young Jews living in this country. A recent survey showed that 29% of British Jews had considered emigrating because of safety concerns. That is up from 11% in 2012 to now nearly a third of Jews living in this country. About a quarter of them have suffered antisemitic harassment in the last year and about one in three have suffered such harassment in the past five years. This should shame us all. It makes me embarrassed as a Member of Parliament and should shame us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy made a great speech about the experience of Jews living in mainland Europe. I cannot reiterate the feeling we had going to that school in Brussels, which is guarded by armed Belgian soldiers, with armoured vehicles outside. I was a schoolteacher. I never had to go through those hoops to get into my school to teach, and to think that pupils have to go through that in mainland Europe just to go to school and do the things they have a right to do is truly shocking. We asked the young people there if they could see a future for themselves in Europe and only a very few hands went up to show they could.
As many Members have said, we have a problem on both sides of politics in this country. There is a growing movement on the far right. According to all surveys, those on the far right hold the most antisemitic views in society, and that is a huge and growing problem. It should concern us all that the far right is getting younger in this country. It is tapping into this feeling of discontent and all the rest of it. As I said in the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, I am disgusted, as somebody who believes in and campaigned for Brexit, that some of these people are now trying to use that issue to further their own hateful, spiteful and poisonous political ideology. It disgusts me, and I say not in my name and not in the name of the nearly 70% of my constituents who trudged out and voted to leave the EU.
The CST contacted me a couple of weeks ago saying, “We’d like to come and talk to you, because your name is on a far-right list as somebody who is trying to stop Brexit,” as my hon. Friend highlighted. I will sit down with the CST and find out exactly what was said, but that is the nonsense perpetuated on the far right. It is fair to say that UKIP has now become a far-right party. The new leader and some of its members seem to be revelling in embracing a far-right, fascist agenda.
As many colleagues have said, antisemitism is a huge problem on the far left of politics. I will not say a great deal about that—Labour Members can speak to it better than I can—but I was outraged at the report on  Sky News that George Galloway, who has reapplied to join the Labour party, described the decision of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) to leave the Labour party as a black-ops plot against the leader. He also used the phrase “Goebbels-style” throughout.

Jess Phillips: To reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House, the women in the Labour party have spoken today collectively to push our Front Benchers and the leadership of our party to say that Mr Galloway is not entitled or able to join our party not only because of the rules, but because he is not welcome as he is a misogynist and an antisemite. I would never be in the same party as him.

Andrew Percy: I thank the hon. Lady for saying that. Let us call this out for what it was: it was Jew-baiting and a deliberate use of language and of Goebbels to bait. It is exactly the same on the far left as it is on the far right. Let us call George Galloway what he is: he is a misogynist and a racist. That is exactly what he is. He has no place in this Chamber or in politics in this country.
What do we do about antisemitism? We have identified the problem and we know that it is growing in our country. I want to reflect to the Secretary of State on where we are getting it right in schools and the curriculum—I used be a history teacher—but also on where we need to do a lot more. It is right that holocaust education is written into the national curriculum. When we teach holocaust education, we of course teach the history of antisemitism in Europe as part of it, but I fear that the teaching of the holocaust in isolation could leave pupils with the impression that that was the end of it. We say that antisemitism started and ended with the holocaust and the end of the second world war, but we need to look at how we can broaden the school curriculum so that the liberation of Europe and the camps is not the end of the antisemitism story. It is right that holocaust education is on the curriculum, but we need to look at how we can go further.
I had another good idea, but, as a former teacher, I cannot read my own writing. Not for the first time, I will follow up on that excellent idea with the Secretary of State as soon as I have deciphered my own code. I will end on that, but I associate myself with what other hon. Members have said. I am so proud that, in debates such as today’s, the Chamber is united in its revulsion of this disgusting scourge.

Luciana Berger: Why are we joined here for this debate? It was almost a year ago that I shared with the House my family’s history and experience of antisemitism through the centuries. My mother’s family were expelled from Spain in the 15th century. I spoke about the more than 100 members of my family aged from four to 83 who were murdered by the Nazis in the gas chambers of Treblinka, Sobibór, Mauthausen, Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz.
What has happened since that last debate? It pains me to say this and share with the House that we have gone backwards, as we have heard from hon. Members’ contributions. We have not seen the progress we should have seen over the course of the past 11 months. On a  personal level, I have in the past year alone seen a further two people convicted: one from the far-right, imprisoned after he threatened to kill me, convicted under counter-terrorism legislation, and another just before Christmas, a former member of the Labour party convicted of harassment. That takes my tally to six or seven individuals, depending on how you interpret it, convicted of antisemitic-inspired hate crimes and threats.
And there is a significant amount of antisemitism that might not reach the criminal threshold but that has surfaced. I have been subjected to thousands of messages of antisemitic abuse and hate, and I want to reflect on what I have seen in just the past week and share with the House the range of terms I have seen; they range from the ridiculous to the truly disturbing. There might be a small minority who think I am a “Zionist lizard” or that I am responsible for Eurovision taking place in Israel. It is sadly all too common to be addressed as “an evil little witch” or a “murderous Zionist.”
Abuse is only part of the problem. Arguably more concerning, as we have heard already, is the rise of insidious antisemitic conspiracy theories: that I am an agent of Mossad, that I am a traitor to my country, that I am paid directly by Benjamin Netanyahu, based purely on my Jewish background. The comments underneath my posts on social media are filled with individuals calling me the MP for Tel Aviv or asking whether a Member of Likud can stand for election in our country. And just yesterday an individual who says they are a member of the Labour party and with the hashtag “JCforPM” in their bio—they have been on Twitter for an extended period and have hundreds of followers, so this is not a bot that has been created—said:
“shame on Luciana Berger, A Zionist Bitch, I hate her, I hate her baby, her Israel.”
Elsewhere an official Labour-affiliated group, Young Labour, announced that the departure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) would mean that “Palestine Lived” and then proceeded in bullying the Jewish chair of Young Labour, while influential Twitter users have wished “good riddance” to “Israel’s fifth columnists.” They have called myself and hon. and right hon. Friends “the Israel stooges party”, “the Israeli apartheid democratic front” and so on. Others have alleged that the Rothschilds and George Soros will declare their backing for the new Independent Group. I share all this because this is what is happening in our country, from people across the country, during the past week and today in particular.
In the Labour party, my political home for nearly 20 years until I resigned from it on Monday, I have seen obfuscation, smears, inaction and denial every step of the way. We had a debate in this House following the unprecedented event of a minority community in our country, the British Jewish community, taking to Parliament Square outside this place to say enough is enough when it comes to antisemitism. It was not a demonstration against National Action or Tommy Robinson; it was against the Labour party, a political movement that is supposed to pride itself on the values of equality for all and anti-racism against all.
Yet what has happened in the wake of that unprecedented event in our country and in the wake of the debate in this House that took place just a few weeks later? Mr Speaker, you could not make up the catalogue of  events that has shamed the Labour party since that happened: the countless individual cases, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) has alluded to already, that have been dropped or have not been responded to. In the run-up to Holocaust Memorial Day this year, we learned of members of the Labour party in high-profile positions, a number of them councillors and one a Welsh Assembly Member, who had made antisemitic comments and had as their sanction a “reminder of the rules”. That was somehow a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism. We have heard the audio recording of a member of the Labour party’s highest governing body, the national executive committee, accuse 70 British rabbis of being Trump fanatics rather than addressing their very serious concerns about antisemitism. We had to fight for months to see the international definition of antisemitism with all its examples accepted and adopted by the Labour party, and even with a last-minute attempt to dilute it.
We had the summer of antisemitism, when not a day went by without another story in the British press about antisemitism in the Labour party and about its leader’s connections to the issue. One in particular, which caused gross offence, was the claim that British Jews do not get irony. We were told that the Leader of the Opposition was present, but not involved, at the laying of a wreath for the individuals who orchestrated the Munich attacks and the murder of the Israeli athletes. The commitment to meet a deadline to deal with high-profile cases has been deliberately missed, and the party is withholding details of physical threats to MPs, including myself. Just last week, the leadership of the parliamentary Labour party held members in contempt despite their reasonable request to answer 11 straightforward questions and to respond to serious concerns about antisemitism, which was ignored.
This is a shameful record, let alone from a leadership and a political party that seek the highest office in our land. That is why I have arrived at the sickening conclusion that the Labour party is institutionally antisemitic in its processes, its attitudes and its behaviour. We ignore this at our peril. Colleagues have referred to the figures. We have seen a 16% rise in the number of incidents since 2017, and behind every one of those incidents is a person who has been affected.

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Lady is making some powerful points. I am reminded of the Russian saying that the fish always rots from the head. Does she agreed that that is apt in this case?

Luciana Berger: I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and of course people will contend with this issue in different ways. I have not held back from speaking out and seeking to challenge at every available opportunity what I have seen as antisemitism within the ranks of what was my party. This is an issue not just for us here in this country but for countries across Europe. We heard that there were demonstrations yesterday in 60 towns and cities against the increase in antisemitism there.
I will certainly not be intimidated, bullied or silenced. I have used and will continue to use the full force of British law to ensure that people are held to account for the crimes they commit. There should be no tolerance, and that extends to all issues and crimes when it comes  to racism. However, this cannot be the British Jewish community’s fight alone. History tells us where this can lead. I am clear that, across the Chamber and in every institution in every part of our national life, we must drive out antisemitism and promote the values of respect, equality and tolerance. I am sick and tired of debating this and describing it. We have had enough warm words and read enough tweets of solidarity; now is the time for swift, strong and decisive action, so that when we debate this again in a year’s time, we can celebrate our progress rather than having to reflect once again on our collective failure. I implore all Members from across the House to do everything they can to tackle antisemitism in our country.

Matthew Offord: It is hard to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). I pay tribute to her for the actions that she has taken in the past couple of days, as well as for all she has done since first being elected in 2010. It takes a huge amount of courage to do what she has done.
I have a large Jewish community in my constituency, and the work of the Community Security Trust is particularly important there. In fact, I called for this debate after the release of the CST’s figures. I pay tribute to the trust for the work that it does and for its selfless action in looking after the community. I was pleased that my first parliamentary question here asked for money to pay for the trust to look after schoolchildren at their schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) agreed with me at the time that he did not see why parents should have to pay to keep their children safe just because they were going to school. We continue to fund that work.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the fact that there have been 1,652 antisemitic incidents in the past year, but that is not the whole story. A further 630 potential incidents were reported, but they were not included by the CST because there was no evidence of antisemitic motivation, targeting or content. However, many of the people who suffered those incidents were from the Jewish faith. Previously, we have seen spikes in the number of incidents following military action in Israel or conflict in Gaza or even the west bank, but that has not occurred in the past year. There have been some border skirmishes in which people have been killed, but two particular periods stand out in which there have been spikes in antisemitic incidents.
The first period when the CST recorded an additional number of incidents came during April and May last year, which coincided with the Leader of the Opposition’s past support for a mural in Tower Hamlets coming to light. The so-called graffiti artist Mear One, whom many of us will remember, produced a mural showing people who very much looked like elderly Jewish men sitting around a table supported on the backs of, presumably, African-Caribbean slaves. Many comments were made at the time, which coincided with an increased number of incidents. The second period came in August and September last year, when there was much discussion in the media about whether the Labour party would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance  definition of antisemitism, and the number of antisemitic incidents increased to 150 in those months. I certainly did not want this debate to be about criticising the Labour party per se, but I want Labour to know that when people make comments, there is an effect beyond the coverage in the newspapers.

Bob Stewart: I have listened carefully to everything being said today, and I want to assure my colleagues on the Labour Benches that we on the Conservative Benches support them and feel deeply that they are not antisemitic as a whole. We are sad that this is happening.

Matthew Offord: I do not believe that that intervention was aimed directly at me, but I will say that I have for some time been asked in hustings and during elections, “Is the Labour party antisemitic?” and I have never really engaged in that debate. The simple reason why I could not do that is because the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) is certainly not antisemitic and was very much part of the Labour party. I have therefore always resisted saying that the Labour party is antisemitic, and I have resisted saying that the Leader of the Opposition is antisemitic. I will let others make their minds up about that.
In a very good book by Anthony Julius called “Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England” that I found in the Library, the author suggests that there have been four periods in history when Jews have been prominent and have received antisemitic abuse, and I think that we are now in a fifth. The antisemitism of recent years has taken the form of criticism of Zionism and of the actions and policies of the Government of Israel, which has often manifested itself in direct action, such as the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. However, the new line of attack is different from traditional antisemitism, meaning the hatred of Jews, claims that Jews are inferior to others or a belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy or the Jewish control of capitalism. The new antisemitism differs in the political voices from which it comes. Previously antisemitism was perceived as coming from the political right, but the new antisemites are primarily on the left and, indeed, the far left.
I have a concern about how such views are communicated to the public through social media. The Antisemitism Policy Trust and the CST found that when Google removed “Are Jews evil?” from its autocomplete function in December 2016, 10% fewer people searched for “Are Jews evil?” than in the previous year. Search companies should stop directing people to antisemitic content on the internet, and we must better equip users and remove content when it is uploaded.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I went to Dublin with the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism to visit Facebook and Twitter. I am sure that he will remember that when we spoke to Facebook, its reaction to any kind of racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic comment was, “We must remove it as soon as possible.” However, when we spoke to Twitter, it likened any such posts to comments made in the street to someone as they pass by. We felt that was certainly not an appropriate response. I would like to see the Government and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport consider legislation to prevent such comments from being allowed to remain online.
I am particularly disappointed by two comments that many of us will have seen online yesterday. The first was in response to the right hon. Member for Enfield North when she moved to her current position as an independent Member. Young Labour tweeted:
“Joan Ryan Gone—Palestine Lives”.
As though she had any effect on either Palestine, the west bank, Gaza or Israel.
The second comment, and I do not think it necessary to name the Member, was about the financial backers of the new Independent Group:
“Support from the State of Israel, which supports both Conservative and Labour ‘Friends of Israel’, of which Luciana was chair, is possible and I would not condemn those who suggest it”.
Well, I certainly would. I cannot speak for Labour Friends of Israel, but I am sure it is the same as Conservative Friends of Israel, which does not receive any money from the Israeli Government—it receives its finances from within this country, as per the law.
I ask Labour Front Benchers to do more, and not only about the members I have mentioned today and the comments they have made online; they also need to actively seek out those who are causing a terrible and emotional time for so many of my residents.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree has shown us today what antisemitism feels like, but many of my constituents show me on an almost daily basis how it affects them. One comment, on which I will end, came from a gentleman today and, like me, he is very concerned about the removal of a passport from a British person, “If Mr Corbyn was to be elected, he would know that I have the right of return to Israel, and no doubt I would have my passport taken away.” I do not believe that, and I certainly hope this country never ends up behaving in such a way, but we cannot go on like this. We cannot allow people to behave in the way they have, and we must stop it before people leave this country.

Ivan Lewis: This debate comes at a time of unprecedented anxiety among the Jewish community in this country. A significant majority increasingly worry about their safety and security here, and they question whether their children and grandchildren have a future in the country they love. Yes, this is partially the result of a record number of antisemitic incidents, as reported by the Community Security Trust, and it is also because of the eternal threat from the far right and fundamentalist terrorism, which means that Jewish schools require permanent security guards and security fences, but it is mainly provoked by the fear that the Leader of the Opposition could become Prime Minister of this country.
That is distressing for the community, but it is heart- breaking for those of us whose lives and life chances have been shaped by both our Jewish and Labour identities. How the Labour party, a party that has always had anti-racism as a core value, has got itself into this position is both tragic and extraordinary, and I will devote my contribution to that today.
The current leadership have enabled it by associating for decades with people whose hatred for capitalism has included false assertions about the alleged malign influence of powerful Jews. The problem is not only their association with such people but their refusal to condemn them and  call out their antisemitism. People who were previously involved on the fringes of mainstream politics are now members of the Labour party.
Then there is the leadership’s long-standing support for the hard left’s demonisation of Zionism and its global strategy to equate Zionism with racism and to bastardise the word “Zionism”. In the hard left’s world view, the west is the problem, especially the US, and Israel is a proxy of the US in the middle east, where it does not belong.
In reality, Zionism is the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their own state. It is not expansionism, aggression or the policy of any particular Israeli Government. Many Zionists, including me, oppose settlement expansion and hope that, at some stage in the future, there will be leaders on all sides with the authority and credibility to create the conditions for a two-state solution.
The problem is that those in the current Labour leadership have always believed that the creation of Israel was a catastrophe and, whatever their protestations, favour a one-state solution—Palestine, not Israel. This is in stark contrast to their campaigning for the rights of minorities around the world to self-determination. So in their world view, Jews are the only minority who do not have that right to self-determination. Israel is singled out and demonised when human rights abuses and lack of democracy in many other countries are on a much greater scale, including countries deified by the hard left. Jewish people are held responsible individually and collectively for alleged actions of the Israeli Government.
After a summer when the Labour party was engulfed in a perfect storm as a result of its refusal to accept the internationally agreed definition of antisemitism, what was the reaction of the party leader? It was to go to a meeting of the party’s national executive with his own proposed amendment that people should have the right to say that the creation and existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour. In other words, based on this definition, the leader of the Labour party supports people’s right to be antisemitic. This is extraordinary.
Then, we must consider the long-term support for terrorist organisations who kill and incite the murder of Jews—Hamas and Hezbollah. Of course, there is a perfectly respectable argument to be made for talking to terrorist groups to persuade them to end violence and become part of political and peace processes, but with neither Hamas nor Hezbollah, or the IRA, was this the objective of the Leader of the Opposition. His interactions were clearly to show solidarity with their cause and hence legitimise their use of violence in pursuit of their goals. That is the hard truth. Because of this, how can Labour, under his leadership, tackle the “cancer” of antisemitism when many of the accusations refer to people who articulate views he shares and their loyalty to the leader takes precedence over the party’s anti-racist values?
Why should this matter to the vast majority of UK Jews? It is quite simply because Israel is our best, and perhaps only, safe haven against the persecution Jews have suffered in every generation through history, most recently, with the pogroms of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the horrors of the holocaust only 80 years ago. Jews’ fear of persecution is based on historical and contemporary facts, not irrationality or paranoia. Even in civilised France, we have seen tens of  thousands of Jews leave our neighbouring European Union country in the past 20 years because of their direct experiences of antisemitism.
I salute my former colleagues who have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community. But it has made me sick to the stomach to observe the silence of some in the party and, in other cases, the denial of the problem or attempts to smear those who have spoken out. The abuse and threats meted out to my courageous hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) have disgusted most decent people. Instead of empathy and support, the response of the hard left was to call a vote of no confidence in her—and they call themselves socialists! Quite simply, if all this has happened in the party, imagine what would happen in our country if the right hon. Gentleman ever became Prime Minister. That is why UK Jews are afraid, and why I urge my friends and former colleagues to examine their consciences and act to put an end to this shameful chapter in the Labour party’s history. Antisemitism is not some second-class form of racism. A party rooted in the values of equality and anti-discrimination cannot collude with racism as a price worth paying for chasing an election victory.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: A six-minute limit now applies.

Fiona Bruce: I am sure that I represent all Members of this House in saying that the Jewish community is and has been a real blessing to our nation throughout its history; both inside and outside this House, Jewish individuals have contributed in extraordinary ways to the culture and prosperity we all share. We should take this opportunity to honour and thank their community for the contribution they make to our common good. In recognising and celebrating the Jewish community, we should condemn unequivocally all antisemitic behaviour suffered by our Jewish brothers and sisters. One antisemite is one too many, and there is much work to be done to tackle this.
Today, I wish to focus on the responses to the problem. An effective response will flow partly from the following two principles. First, we must do all we can through education to understand and accept our differences, and in this context our religious differences in particular. Although respect for freedom of religion and belief should not give special privileges to the religious, it should allow believers like our Jewish brothers and sisters the maximum possible freedom to live out and profess publicly who they are and what they believe. Secondly, we must re-emphasise the things that bind us all together, whatever our background or beliefs, and first and foremost that means our innate value as individual human beings—our shared humanity.
Before I touch on those principles in a little more detail, let me just say that true tolerance cannot just be of religions or practices with which we agree; it must also be of those who may be quite different from ourselves. Neither is true tolerance best fostered by state-established measures of what is good for all; rather, it is fostered by enabling those who are different to exist  freely and together with those differences. One way to promote that is to facilitate better religious education in schools.
As chair of the all-party group on religious education, I am aware of the number of highly dedicated RE teachers throughout the country, yet as our report “Improving Religious Literacy: A Contribution to the Debate” highlighted, over recent years RE has not been given the priority or resources that it should have had in many schools. I am pleased that Education Ministers are now seeking to address this, because for many children today RE serves as the main or sole space in which they encounter and discuss different religious beliefs, values and meaning.
Poor-quality RE can have a lasting detrimental effect on the extent of children’s ability to understand and engage with those of different faiths. In turn, that can affect their ability throughout life to engage intelligently and positively in an increasingly diverse society. A submission to the all-party group from the University of Chester department of theology and religious studies said:
“Religious literacy enables willingness and ability to live with religious and cultural tensions and with conflicting beliefs and practices. It supports social cohesion by providing spaces where different views can be aired, listened to and engaged with without the pressure to conform to an overall perspective.”

Jim Shannon: I have been moved by the speeches we have heard, and particularly by the hon. Lady now. Does she agree that we need the three themes of love, tolerance and respect of everyone in society? That is what this debate is about and we should all practise those themes in our own lives, and those outside this place should do the same.

Fiona Bruce: The hon. Gentleman hits the mark absolutely.
Good religious education will help to promote community cohesion, which is critical as the shape of our communities changes. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Education appreciates that, too. He noted recently:
“It is mandatory for all state funded schools to teach RE and it is important that they do this well. Good quality religious education not only helps schools meet their legal duty to promote children and young people’s spiritual and moral development. It also gives them knowledge of the values and traditions of Britain and other countries, and so fosters mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.”
Lord Alton said in the other place:
“Religious literacy and understanding of faith and no faith, the honouring of difference, the determination to understand one another and to reconsider bigotry, prejudice and caricatures, must surely be at the heart of how we form tomorrow’s citizens.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 2018; Vol. 794, c. GC158.]
We can promote true tolerance by reasserting the rights and respect owed to each person simply by virtue of their humanity. These rights, as intended in the universal declaration of human rights, assume that we all have equality by virtue of our humanity.

John Hayes: Before my hon. Friend moves on further from religious education, I should say that on the basis of what she has described, perhaps it is time for new  guidance from the Department for Education, along exactly the lines she has described, to reinforce the importance of religious education and to firm it up and make it more substantial.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady has three more minutes, but I gently suggest that she is not obliged to use them.

Fiona Bruce: I will endeavour not to, Mr Speaker.
I was speaking about the importance of our individual humanity, which we should respect before any differences in intelligence, strength, religion, ability or political views. We should understand that each of us is individually and uniquely created, and that no insignificant person has ever or will ever be born. It is this vision of dignity in our shared humanity that was lost during the holocaust.
My favourite teacher at school—I know we all had one—was a German who had, with her father, helped Jewish children escape from the Nazis. They then had to escape themselves. She taught me German, but she also taught me something far more important than that. She taught me that no ideology should take precedence over respect for an individual as a human being and as a person.
I note that we subtly enable persecution every time we promote the use of language that often accompanies identity politics. Our political opponents are not necessarily wicked. They are certainly not scum. They are due a respectable ear and proper dialogue. Those who differ from us, whether in their political or religious views, or in their ethnicity, are first and foremost our brothers and sisters in humanity. I know that our Jewish brothers and sisters teach and promote these principles. As a society, let us stand alongside them and do all we can to enable them to flourish in their unique identity and beliefs.

Louise Ellman: This is a traumatic time. In the past three days, eight highly respected hon. Members have left the Labour party, citing the Labour party’s antisemitism as the key reason. The antisemitic abuse that I receive includes claims that I do not have human blood, that I am a racist supporter of child abuse, that I am a Zio, a Zionist shill and the Jewish Labour Movement’s bitch, that I accept the Israeli shilling, that I am prepared to sacrifice the Labour party in support of a foreign power, and much more.
That could never have taken place in the Labour party that I joined, but today’s Labour party is dominated by a hard-left faction that too easily embraces centuries-old antisemitic conspiracy theories couched in left-wing terminology. It struggles to recognise that it has a problem. Perhaps it is the problem. That is why the party finds it so difficult to deal with the deluge of antisemitism it has unleashed. If the term “Jew” is replaced by “Zionist”, today’s Labour party is perfectly at ease with anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Even as the eight hon. Members left, they were accused of being manipulated and funded by Israel.
Why is Jackie Walker, who repeats Louis Farrakhan’s racist lies that Jews were the main financiers of the slave trade, still in the Labour party? How could Kayla Bibby be let off scot-free after downloading an antisemitic image from the website Incogman that presents Jews as
“Parasites responsible for financial heists of entire nations”
and that is headed “Bloodsucking Alien Parasites Killing America”, the alien parasites being the Jews?
This is an abject failure of leadership for a party that aspires to government. No amount of reassurances from spokespeople can make matters right. In fact, they are insulting. Who do they think they are kidding? It is only action in drumming out the antisemites in the Labour party that counts, and there is little sign of that happening—unless, of course, the party becomes embarrassed by the public exposure of its failings. This is not just a problem for the Jewish community. It is about the nature of our society and the soul of the Labour party. Labour prides itself on being an anti-racist party, but a party that struggles to combat anti-Jewish hatred is complicit in racism. That is the reality.
Why am I still in the Labour party? I am not used to giving up. I still believe in the values that brought me into the Labour party 56 years ago—anti-racism, the struggle for equality, seeking the means to create a better society. I am still fighting, and I will not be hounded out. Indeed, I suspect that the leadership would be delighted to see all its opponents go.
I am encouraged by the support of the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs—Jewish and non-Jewish—and many members, including those in Liverpool. I am still battling for the soul of the Labour party as, with my Jewish and non-Jewish colleagues, I oppose antisemitism wherever it raises its ugly head.

Maria Caulfield: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman).
One of the most poignant sayings is that history has a habit of repeating itself. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) put it in excellent terms this afternoon—that history tells us where all this will lead. Whether it was in the holocaust, or whether it was other genocides that followed, in which people of different faiths and from different communities have been tortured and murdered, whether it was in Rwanda, whether it was the Rohingya, the Yazidis, or in Srebrenica—all followed a similar pattern before genocide and holocaust took place. The warning signs are there long before the action happens.
Antisemitism was clearly evident long before the holocaust in which 6 million Jews were executed. Looking at the parallels between then and now, there are some disturbing similarities. Only a few weeks ago, as the Secretary of State said, many of us were signing the book of remembrance for Holocaust Memorial Day, promising that we would speak out if we saw those patterns of behaviour emerging in our society. That is part of the purpose of today’s debate. It is important not to sit silently by, not calling such behaviour out.
At the time in 1933 when Hitler took over as Chancellor, few saw that the creeping antisemitism would lead to the murder of 6 million Jews. Look at the building blocks that were put in place to get to that stage. A man got into power—a man that, in 1919 when he joined the German Workers’ party, many thought a political lightweight that would never lead the party. But he got into power, promising the masses, in the time of austerity following the first world war, that he would end austerity.  Hitler denounced international capitalism; he said he would install a new order to dismantle the broken politics of that generation. He promised increased public spending to build more hospitals, schools, roads. He would curb big business and end capitalism. He had sidelined traditional trade unions and established his own new group, the Labour Front. He set up a youth wing to indoctrinate the next generation so it would follow his values and beliefs. They were often found chanting at popular events such as the Olympics.
Hitler changed the rules in his own party, so that people could not challenge him and get rid of him. He got rid of the moderates in his own party, using the Enabling Act, so that no one could speak out, and if they were afraid, they were gone in an instant. He ended the freedom of the press, and it was after he got into power that the antisemitism was really ramped up. Anyone looking at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website should listen to the testimony of someone like Hedi Pope, whose parents lived through that. She said they were Jewish, but they dismissed some of the changes; they thought they would never last—he would be gone in a few years, and things would return to normal. But they never did.
After 1933, the Jews were dismissed from the civil service. People were told to boycott Jewish goods. They could not attend schools. They could not go to public areas, such as cinemas. There was the physical destruction that we have heard so much about this afternoon—of synagogues, Jewish homes, places of business. In 1938, Jews started to leave, but for many of them it was too late.
At Prime Minister’s Question Time this afternoon, I spoke about Anne Meadows, a councillor—a Labour councillor—since 1994. I know Anne because I was a Conservative councillor with her in the ward of Moulsecoomb and Bevendean—I was the first Conservative councillor there for 20 years. Anne is a fierce, patriotic Labour woman. You did not mess with Anne. I found that to my cost when I was a fellow councillor. To see a woman like that having to leave the Labour party because of antisemitism against her husband is absolutely shocking. What did her local Labour MP tweet today? That this was nothing more than a bare-faced career move by Anne. There was no sympathy for the plight of Anne and her husband. That tells us where we are today. If we think that antisemitism is something that happened in the past and could never escalate to the same levels, we are fooling ourselves and denying what has happened. There is antisemitism today, and as we remember the lives that were lost in the holocaust and previous genocides, we are confronted with a question—what would we have done? Would we have prevented what happened then? Will we have a chance now, because history tells us that if we do not take it we know where this will end?

Ruth Smeeth: I beg the indulgence of the House. I have never stood before to make a speech in the House without notes and without something explicit to say. I never thought that I would do so on an issue so important to me, because I would be so emotional about it. I beg the indulgence of the House for the next six minutes.
A year ago, I stood in this House and read out some of my greatest hits. I got huge solidarity, and lots of people, both within the Labour party and outside, stood with me and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) as we continued our fight—a fight I never thought I would have to have inside my own party, and I promise one that I never wanted. As much as I would love to—not love; happily—share the ongoing abuse that has happened over the past 12 months, I say with respect to everybody in the Chamber that it simply is not about us. It is about the chilling effect that this is having on people outside. It is about the young women who should be joining the Labour party who no longer have a political home. It is about those young women and young men who have decided that their identity stops them getting politically involved. It is for them that we continue this fight. It is for them that I stay on my Benches, inside my party. It is for them that I will fight every single day to ensure that antisemitism is removed from my party.
I say to the leadership of my party that one antisemite is too many. It should not be the case that I or my colleagues have to mention the names of antisemites either in this Room—in this wonderful Chamber—or to the parliamentary Labour party for someone to be thrown out. I would like to report to the House that Derek Hatton has been suspended from the Labour party. It took a complaint by my friend the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and for that to be mentioned in the House.
I am sick and tired, and my heart is breaking a little more every day, because of what I have to experience and what I have to read. I am devastated that my closest political sister in this House has been hounded out of my party, but I have a message for everybody. I will not be silenced. I am going nowhere, and they will have to take my membership card away from me, because this is too important—not for me, not for you, but for the people we represent outside.
I want to say thank you to everybody who has supported us. I want to say thank you to the CST, which has kept me safe. I want to say thank you to the police, who have kept me safe, and I want to say thank you to the Government, who have been there when my own party has not, which is shameful. But this fight continues, and it continues on behalf of is all. Everybody should grant the CST more money, and they should support and join the APPG. Now is the time not only for words, not only for things in the Chamber, but for action, because we so desperately need it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. There are six people wanting to speak—four minutes each. I call Stephen Kerr.

Stephen Kerr: That was a most extraordinary speech and I compliment the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) for delivering it in the way she did.
I almost feel that little more needs to be said, but when I was first elected as Member of Parliament for Stirling, I made a commitment to myself that I would stand up in this place, and in all other places, to defend  any persecuted minority and to speak up against hatred in all its grizzly, ugly forms. That is why I want to take a few minutes of the House’s time to make it clear that I stand with my Jewish friends and neighbours against the racist vileness that is antisemitism.
Where are we going as a society when a person’s ethnicity or religion is used to demean them and their right to freedom of speech? I have never felt the need to apologise for or hide my religious convictions or affiliations, and no one in this country should ever have to do so. No one should ever have to suffer being the subject of public pillory because of their origins or their religious affiliation. Freedom of religion or belief is a foundational human right.
Based on my limited experience as a Member of this House, I cannot imagine the bullying, abuse and mockery that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and others have had to endure and are enduring. The grotesque treatment to which she and other hon. Members have been subject is deplorable and must be condemned, not least by the leadership of the Labour party.
I am deeply concerned about the rise of this hate, here and around the world. Jew hate seems to me to be a significant element in the overall increase of intolerance and hatred of all kinds. There is a coarsening of public discourse in the way in which intolerance and bigotry are being normalised, not least because of the prevalence of the abuse of social media platforms.
There is so much to be critical of in this world when it comes to injustice, whether it is the treatment of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia, the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar, or the official Chinese persecution and imprisonment of more than 1 million Muslims. There is no small amount of injustice in this world, but it is telling that far more energy and importance is attached to divestment and boycott campaigns against Israel than against any other country. That was demonstrated last month, when Malaysia banned Israelis from participating in the world Para swimming championships. We have also heard calls for the boycott of Eurovision when it takes place in Israel, but protests against awarding the World cup to Qatar or against holding the Olympic games in China are muted at best.
In the minute I have left, let me say that this instinct of hatred, which some on the left and the right wish to bring to the surface of our natures, can only be truly defeated by love. Tolerance is not enough. Tolerance implies that we may dislike something but we will politely keep our mouths shut and grudgingly allow people to behave in a way that is destructive to our way of life. It is only when we truly see the common humanity that we share, free of the strictures of difference, that we will become free of intolerance and hatred. It is for that reason that I have made freedom of religion or belief one of the issues that I will continue to speak about in this Chamber. These hatreds—racism, religious persecution and intolerance—make us all slightly less human and diminish us all wherever they are. I cannot think of a more important subject to speak out on.

John Mann: I shall comment on one issue only—not the racists and the antisemites who have been exposed, but the enablers, because the enablers are an equally big problem and there are a lot of them, not least in the Labour party.
I will give one example from the previous debate in which I spoke. One enabler went online and put out to a lot of people the suggestion that I had exaggerated and lied about an incident relating to a dead bird that was sent to my wife by a misogynist antisemite in 2012, for which someone was prosecuted. This enabler found a press cutting from the Worksop Guardian that showed that someone was prosecuted for the misogynist crime. That is accurate, but this enabler, a journalist, did not bother to contact me before he put this out to very many people. He did not ask me whether what I had said was wrong. He therefore did not know that, when in advance of that, I had given the specific antisemitic literature from a man called Roger Dyas-Elliott to Nottinghamshire police, the police requested that the antisemitism was not included in the prosecution—as a dead bird had been sent through the post, the prosecution would be immediate and successful, and this would therefore delay things—and, on that basis, I had agreed.
Dyas-Elliott is an antisemite whom I have challenged repeatedly in my local Labour party. I banned him from my office, and through his union, the National Union of Domestic Appliances and General Operatives, had his pass taken away at the Labour party conference in 2010. This is what he said in 2010, which led to my first action against him. In a letter to the Worksop Guardian, during the general election, he called for an investigation into the motives and machinations of the Zionist fraternity and the conduct and behaviour of the Bilderberg Group. He is an antisemite who repeatedly, in letters to the press and letters to me, put out this vile stuff, and therefore I challenged him. I took him on in meetings, and I banned him, kicked him out of campaigns and stopped him being a candidate.
That is the truth of what happened with Roger Dyas-Elliott, a misogynist criminal and an antisemite, yet this enabler, Kevin Maguire—a national journalist, associate editor of the Daily Mirror and correspondent for the New Statesman, a press pass holder here and one of the people used by Labour party Front Benchers to put out their message repeatedly—puts this out, and what do I get as a response? Let us quote from Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party forum the next day:
“I enjoyed the too and froing when Mann was accusing a guy of being anti-semitic and racist”,
and
“I hate this man!... I’d like to punch him in the face!”
I do not have time to go through the rest, but that one was from Joe Kelsall in a private Facebook group. He was a Labour party member in Sefton, Liverpool, and he is still a Labour party member, despite my complaints. Joe Kelsall is a man who wants to punch me in the face, following the enabling of Maguire.
The enablers of antisemitism are as big a problem as the antisemites, and they are more numerous. It is time the enablers were exposed. I have exposed one: Kevin Maguire—an enabler of racism.

Clive Lewis: For me, this debate is personal. I am not Jewish, but as a black man I know what it feels like to experience racism of both the individual and the institutional kind. I understand how a racist insinuation is not just offensive, but isolating, making you suddenly feel vulnerable and excluded. I know how the repetition of a well-worn stereotype or  trope, followed by the inevitable denial that it is racist, can be undermining and exhausting. I know, because I have seen it and felt it, as well as read about it, that hostility to Jewish people and age-old antisemitic stereotypes are becoming more common.
Many people speaking in this debate will have experienced antisemitism at first hand, as we have already heard in some of the distressing testimonies today. As has been stated, it is clear that most of the well-documented rise in antisemitic incidents here and in many other parts of Europe is driven by the alt-right, the far right and the fascist right. They are emboldened by the xenophobic rhetoric of our age to form a sickening new far-right internationalism, with sometimes devastating consequences for all racial minorities.
Did I believe that in 2019 I would wake up to the news that “No blacks” signs had been daubed on the front door of the home of a 10-year-old boy who had just started a new school, or that Islam would be seen as a threat to the British way of life by one third of people in the UK, according to a poll commissioned by the anti-fascist group, HOPE not hate?
I know that racism can take different forms and all of us can hold unconscious biases. In a frank self-admission, George Orwell, writing in 1945, suggested that the starting point for any investigation of antisemitism should be not just condemning others but looking inside ourselves. This is good advice, even today, that I know some people in my party seem to find quite difficult to follow. The fact that the left is opposed to racism in principle does not mean that it is immune to being, consciously or unconsciously, racist or antisemitic in practice. It can be all the more difficult for us to face up to this fact given the extent of unacknowledged racism in other parties, which goes deep.
In the 1930s, assertions of hidden power and wealth were routinely hurled at hundreds of thousands of poor Jewish immigrants living in the slums of London and Manchester. Today, similar projections, conscious or otherwise, can be heard in the repeated association of Jewish people with shadowy conspiracies, often associated with Israel—especially when complaints of antisemitism are made, even when the evidence of it is before our eyes. And it is before our eyes.
The same HOPE not hate report affirms the seriousness of modern antisemitism, online and off, including the very real problem of left-wing antisemitism. Sometimes I hear it said that antisemitism should not be focused on at all in modern Britain as that takes space away from highlighting racism against other groups—as though there is a finite space for this discussion that cannot expand. That can unwittingly reproduce a stereotype of Jews as somehow powerful and privileged even when they are calling out the racism that they experience.
As a black man who has experienced racism all my life, I see the situation very differently: to my mind, closing our eyes to racism against one group only emboldens racism against us all. The only way to combat racism is to show no tolerance to any of it, ever. In that spirit, a few of us have recently formed the new Black, Asian and Jewish Alliance, which we call BAJA. Through our existence, we aim to highlight diversity within our groups as well as between us. Based on the principle of mutual solidarity, we recognise that what  we hold in common is considerable, but we also try to listen and learn from each other about our distinctive experiences.
Above all, we know that racism can be defeated only if we stay united and refuse to be divided by any of the current tensions that swirl around us. As we look around the world today, with the rise of the hard right in the form of Trump, Bolsonaro, Salvini and too many others, we know that tackling the scourge of growing antisemitism, wherever it is found, has rarely been so urgent.

Joan Ryan: It is a great sorrow that we are once again debating the rise of antisemitism. As a Labour party member for 40 years, now a former member, I am sickened and ashamed that we have seen antisemitism rear its ugly head in British society—and at the core of British politics: in Her Majesty’s official Opposition.
Yesterday, I made the terribly painful decision to resign as a member of the Labour party. I could not remain a member of a political party whose leadership allows Jews to be abused with impunity and the victims of such abuse to be ridiculed and have their motives questioned and integrity called into doubt. It is that antisemitism that is found on the left, and the connection between it and anti-Zionism is what I particularly want to address today.
There is nothing antisemitic about criticising the policies and actions of the Israeli Government—millions of Israelis do so every single day—but there is an undeniable link between antisemitism and anti-Zionism: those who deny the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, who attempt to demonise and delegitimise the world’s only Jewish state and who invoke antisemitic conspiracies accuse Jews of dual loyalty and—most offensive of all —compare Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis during the holocaust. To deny the link does a disservice to the victims of antisemitism and prevents us from tackling evil.
Let me be clear: no one can pretend to be an ally to the Jewish people while denying their right, and only their right, to self-determination in their historic homeland. No one can oppose antisemitism if they also oppose the existence of a state that exists to provide the ultimate safe haven for Jews facing antisemitism. No one can declare themselves to be a lifelong anti-racist if they single out for disproportionate criticism, above and beyond that expected for any other democratic nation, the world’s only Jewish state and its citizens and deny the religious significance of Israel to the Jewish people.
Over the past three years, we have seen in the Labour party how quickly hatred of Israel and attacks on Zionists can morph into vile racism against Jews—whether through repellent myths about the Rothschilds or the sewer of holocaust denial. Those in the current Labour leadership opened this door. They have shamed and demeaned a once-great party. They have allowed its bonds with Israel to be severed, its anti-racist credentials to be shredded and Jews to be driven from its ranks. I can no longer fight for the values that brought me into politics—equality, solidarity and against discrimination—from such a party. I respect my former colleagues—and still my friends—in the Labour party who have made it clear that they will carry on that fight from inside the  Labour party. It needs to happen inside and out. I hope that what I and other colleagues have had to do will be a real wake-up call.

Stephen Lloyd: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan).
In my limited time, I would like to concentrate on just a couple of points. I am not Jewish, but I was talking to a constituent of mine a few months ago, a perfectly ordinary, normal middle-aged lady who is a Brit. I did not even know that she was Jewish, but during the conversation, it became clear that she was. She told me something quite shocking. She said that, with the change in antisemitism over the past couple of years, she and her friends no longer feel safe in the United Kingdom. This was so astonishing and extraordinary that I chanced it a bit and said, “How can you really feel that, considering all the challenges around the rest of the world?” but she was absolutely clear on that. In the ensuing months, I spent time talking to a number of other Jewish British people in Eastbourne with a similar background—they are not into politics or campaigning—and again and again I found that genuine fear.
That brings me to two outstanding speeches, one of which was from my friend, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) who I have known for a long time. He made a very strong point about enablers, which is crucial. The other speech—I am sorry to see that she has left the Chamber—was from the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). Again, I have known her for over 30 years from before I got into politics. She made a crucial point about how promoting pro-Palestine and pro-Palestinian rights has over the years gone over the line, so that it is no longer a case of, “I disagree with the Israeli Government,” but “I disagree with Jews.”
How did that happen? Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember the hard left from 30 years ago. I hate to say it, but many of us in the Chamber will know that that was always there in the hard left 30 or 35 years ago; it was just that the hard left then did not have any control. Bluntly, it was ignored. Should something have been done? Perhaps, I do not know, but it was ignored. What has changed—I am afraid this is true, although I do not mean this about every member of the Labour Front Bench—is that a cabal of people I would define, many would define and I suspect colleagues behind me would define as the hard left now controls the Labour party. That very same nonsense—and it is nonsense—openly talked about 30 years ago, but by those who had no power, influence or traction, is now everywhere. It has got into normal, ordinary day-to-day conversation. That is why my constituent—this lovely lady who is a friend of mine in Eastbourne who is British, middle-aged and just happens to be Jewish—feels frightened.
That strand now walks the land, and I do not really know what the Labour party is going to do about it—I really don’t. It is different from the hard-right antisemitism that is hundreds of years old. That is thuggish and thick and has been around forever. We could almost take that on. It was easier in a way. But the antisemitism we now have is mainstream with a lot of the supporters of the current Labour party, sadly, and some of its members.  That is a real problem. What I do know is that that type of antisemitism is the canary in the mine. The canary is choking and we really have to deal with it. We have to deal with it now or we will all live to regret it.

James Frith: Antisemitism is trending again. Antisemitism is rising again. Antisemitism is an attack on Jewish people, and when our Jewish communities speak of the fear that they hold, we must listen. When there is anxiety and anger, we must learn and act on these determinations. Whether we are talking about Macpherson, #MeToo or the motion today, this begins with believing the victim and their powerful testimony. It strikes me as well that, as we consider antisemitism, all too often the haters hate harder when it is a woman, so let me condemn both antisemitism and the misogyny we see.
The endless values that we share bring me here today—values of equality, fairness and social justice. Let me also say that it is sometimes more important to single out the calling-out of antisemitism than it is to simply smooth the issue over with a catch-all view of being against racism—just as sometimes I tell each of my children by name that I love them.
Humbly I say that I have no easy answers, but my own perspective guides me. I am the son of a Church of England minister. I am not Jewish, but my wife is. Her Jewish heritage is one of the many things I love about her. We are raising our young family in the traditions of both our faiths, both our cultures. That pursuit is not borne easily. Time spent with mixed-faith couples before my wife and I got married highlighted to us both the anguish that many people face when love and relationships collide across cultures to form family. I am not here just to defend Jewish people from the rising attacks or to call out antisemitism, though I do both; I want to celebrate and affirm Judaism and Jewish people and the contribution that they make to our society, our country and to my life.
My mixed-heritage family is a picture of the messy, beautiful multiculturalism of our country and of modern Jewry. It is also a portrait of hope—I hope—for a better future. For me, this is not about party; it is primal and my principled, personal belief. Modern love, relationships and family across races, religions and cultures can blur the old lines of religious dogma, intolerance or hate-filled political division. Rooted from here, even the most steely glare of these ugly politics can begin to soften.

Jim McMahon: This has been a difficult debate to listen to, and it is one we have repeated. This is not the first time that we have had this debate but it is important that we have done so, and I hope that if we have such a debate in a year’s time, we are reflecting on a year of progress, particularly in my party. I take no pleasure at all in—in fact, I am very hurt by—the experiences of people in my party and what they have to go through on a regular basis.
I pay tribute to a number of people who have spoken today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) talked about her family history and told us some very human stories. When someone looks at their family tree and goes into the stories of  people from many generations ago, those stories are not distant or abstract. They form part of a person’s identity and who they are. When someone reads stories that are so harrowing, it affects them as a person. I know that from my own family, although it is nowhere near comparable with the type of loss and suffering of members of the Jewish community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) spoke about how people’s motives are being questioned. If legitimate views that a member of the Jewish community might have are posted online or are stated in the press, they are questioned on a range of motives. People ask, “Why is that being done? In whose name is it being done? Who are you really working for?” and I just find that sickening. I think that the questioning of motive that has infected our political debate is fundamentally damaging for democracy.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for his outstanding work on the all-party parliamentary group—he has shown real leadership. He told a very personal story about the impact antisemitism had had on his family. We choose to come into politics—we stand for office and we know what comes with that—but we are all hugely protective of our families, their privacy and their right to be normal, non-political people and to live their lives, and when they become the target of abuse in the way he explained, it hurts all of us who believe in common decency and fairness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) talked about—celebrated, if you like—his life and how special it was. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) said that about 100 members of her family had been affected by the holocaust. I want to mention her in particular. Until a couple of days ago, she was a fellow co-operator in Parliament—one of our finest—and in case any members of the Labour party are celebrating the loss of someone like her from our movement, allow me to say this: we are much, much poorer for not having her part of it, and I am so sorry for what she has had to go through.
I believe in the Labour party. We do not have a right to exist, but I think we have a purpose to exist. There is a reason the Labour party was born, and that need is still very much here, but, as has been explained today in very human terms, we have a lot of soul searching to do—who are we and what are our values? I take responsibility, as does every fair-minded member of the parliamentary Labour party, for trying to address that. That is why I am at the Dispatch Box today—not to apologise for a system that is not fit for purpose or right, or for a party where people feel marginalised and as if they ought not to be a member, but because I believe we must all work together in solidarity to make it the party we want it to be.
We have a lot of work to do, not just to improve processes, not just to say it, but to live and breathe it, and we can only do that through our actions. It is important that the backlog of complaints be dealt with, and additional capacity has been put in, but Members are rightly questioning whether some of the judgments made were the right judgments, given that we ought to be taking a zero-tolerance approach. I apologise to other Members for focusing on the Labour party, but it has been a large part of the debate so it is right that I do.
There is an iconic poster from 1945 that reads: “Now let’s win the peace”. I reflect on that quite a lot. Many members of my family served in the armed forces, and it matters to me that every generation coming into this place should take on that responsibility. Every day, when I look at the news, when I go on social media, when I see what happens in my own community, I feel we are far from winning the peace. I take a generational responsibility in doing what I can do to win the peace, but at the moment I would say we are falling backwards. When I look at the rise of racism, at how people are being marginalised, at the tone of political debate and how polarised it has become, it does not seem to me that peace is valued or that we understand the sacrifice people made to give us the type of society we hold dear today.
I pay tribute to the work of the CST, the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Shomrim volunteers, who work to protect, educate and make sure we never forget one of the biggest human tragedies in history. This is no theoretical or abstract debate; rather it goes to the core of who we are as a country and a society. I hope she does not mind, but I will conclude by quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth):
“It is time to be counted in the battle to remove antisemitism from the Labour Party, as it is a battle for the heart and soul of the labour movement.”
I agree with Ruth.

James Brokenshire: With the leave of the House, I would like to conclude this extraordinary debate. It is a difficult debate to summarise, however, because we have had such wide-ranging, heartfelt and painful contributions that have underlined the chilling aspect of antisemitism and how, while this place is a bastion of free speech, actually that free speech is at risk from bullying and intimidation. That was hard to listen to. It gives us a warning that antisemitism is serious. I quoted the statistics in opening the debate, but it does not give us the colour or sense of reality that we were given by so many of the appalling examples that hon. Members underlined in their contributions.
Given the wide-ranging nature of the debate and the passion and honesty with which hon. Members have spoken, it feels slightly invidious to draw attention to specific contributions, but I was struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth). Standing here at the Dispatch Box, I can see the Jo Cox coat of arms just above the hon. Lady and am struck by that sense of there being more in common than divides us, and yet this afternoon we have highlighted a lot of division.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) highlighted the theme of family history, which was mentioned by a number of colleagues. That history matters to us all. She rightly said that she will not be intimidated—I am going back to the issue of freedom of speech. She made the point, as did the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, that she is not going anywhere, and nor should she. They or any hon. Member should be able to make the points they wish to make in the House as they have done.
The comments of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) were equally notable. She talked about anger and anguish, which came through in  a number of contributions, probably most notably in the contribution of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I pay tribute to him for his courage and bravery and for the leadership he has shown through his work and the all-party parliamentary group.
That sense of leadership was a theme in the debate. We need to show leadership as the Government, but equally all leaders of political parties need to show it. I deliberately opened by saying that we should not make this a partisan debate, but people outside the Chamber might wish to reflect on the powerful contributions that have been made by so many this afternoon.
Education and learning the lessons of the holocaust was a strong theme. Our holocaust national memorial and learning centre has been widely supported. It matters that it will be here, next to this seat of democracy, because of the warning it provides to us all. We may take comfort in having a democratic society, but we cannot take it for granted. A number of hon. Members gave that warning this afternoon.
The challenges of the online world were mentioned by a number of colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) also mentioned the education theme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) spoke of the regret she felt at having to make the speech she made this afternoon. It is a regret that we are here today to debate this again. We have heard the message: we have had so much talking, but it is now about action more than words. We all need to instil that sense of action within us.
I conclude with the words of the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis. At a recent sitting of the Home Affairs Committee, he drew a black dot on piece of paper to represent the stain of antisemitism and said:
“The white area represents the situation of Jews in the UK today. It is great to be Jewish in Britain and we are proud to be British. This is a truly wonderful country. But, in that context, we’ve got a problem. It used to be smaller, but it has now got bigger, and it could get bigger and bigger unless we deal with it effectively.”
As long as I am in this role or involved in public life, that is what I will continue to do. It is our responsibility to shrink that black dot. I hope that, by virtue of what we have done today, we will help to turn it into a full-stop.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered antisemitism in modern society.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

John Bercow: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 to 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Animals)

That the draft Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Animals)

That the draft Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)

That the draft Benchmarks (Amendment and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Financial Services And Markets)

That the draft Official Listing of Securities Prospectus and Transparency (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 27 February (Standing Order No. 41A).

John Bercow: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 11 to 14 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Public Procurement)

That the draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 December 2018, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)

That the draft Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 8 January, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Data Protection)

That the draft Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 January, be approved.

Charities

That the draft Small Charitable Donations Act (Amendment) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Terms and Conditions of Employment)

That the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 27 February (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Terms and Conditions of Employment)

That the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 27 February (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Terms and Conditions of Employment)

That the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 31 October 2018, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 27 February (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Terms and Conditions of Employment)

That the draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 31 October 2018, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 27 February (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)

That the draft Financial Services Contracts (Transitional and Saving Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 27 February (Standing Order No. 41A).

John Bercow: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 20 to 24 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Supplementary Provisions and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)

That the draft Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.

Public Service Pensions

That the draft Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 7 January, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Animals)

That the draft Equine (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 10 January, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Civil Aviation)

That the draft Air Traffic Management (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - KNIFE CRIME IN EDMONTON

Kate Osamor: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Edmonton. The petition has over 200 signatures including from local businesses, the local community and our faith leaders.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of London,
Declares that on Tuesday 18th December Edmonton saw a young person lose his life to gun crime; further that in November there were gun and knife crime incidents in our area; further that according to the BBC around 132 lives have been lost in the capital over the last year; noting that this is too many lives lost with too many of them in Edmonton; and further that this has inevitably led our local community to feel unsafe, worried and concerned for our young people.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Home Secretary to urgently increase resources for both the Police and Youth Services to ensure that our young people and communities can live in a safe and positive environment.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002426]

Horse Tethering

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Luke Hall: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on the practice of the long-term tethering of horses. Tethering is the practice of attaching horses to a stake in the ground using a collar, or sometimes just a piece of rope around the neck, that is then fastened to a chain. The animal that once defined our great nation is now being left at risk of neglect, cruelty and abuse because of loopholes in the very legislation that was written to protect it. This debate follows the Break the Chain campaign run by the excellent HorseWorld trust, a leading equine rescue charity in the south-west, just next door to my constituency. The Break the Chain campaign aims to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to include restrictions on the tethering of horses.
Traditionally, tethering has been used as a short-term method of keeping horses, but it has transformed into a method of retaining horses without having to purchase land, by using public or private grassland, often by the side of busy roads, for grazing. Because the tethered animal can be moved quickly, it is easy for people to tether a horse on land that does not belong to them and then move the animal before the authorities can identify the landowner or the owner of the animal. This results in it being virtually impossible to monitor the welfare of these animals, leaving around 3,500 horses in a state of potentially compromised welfare with little or no chance of intervention from charities.
There are a number of reasons why there has been such a large public response to the public campaign. In my constituency and the constituencies that surround it in the west of England, there is a big problem with tethering. There have been incidents where horses tethered by the roadside have been visible from the council offices in Yate, but despite this being a clear breach of the Animal Welfare Act, it could not be acted upon because the law does not state explicitly that tethering is a welfare concern. Unfortunately, because these horses are not protected by law, most cases of tethered horses that HorseWorld gets called to do not end well. The horses are simply moved before the Control of Horses Act 2015 can take effect. One incident saw a tethered horse break free near a large shopping centre at Cribbs Causeway in south Gloucestershire, next to a major road. By the time the horse was rescued and able to be seen by a vet, the injuries that it had sustained, most likely from having been hit by a car, meant that it had to be put down.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important subject to the Adjournment debate tonight. The British Horse Society is on record as stating that although many horses will thrive on a diet consisting only of grass, it is vital that tethered horses are moved regularly to ensure a constant supply of fresh food, and that during the winter months or at any other time when grass is scarce, additional work and feeding needs to be carried out. Tethering is clearly not a long-term solution for any horse, and this has to be looked at. Does he agree that the change to the legislation that the Minister has a chance to bring in would be a way of addressing the issue?

Luke Hall: It is a genuine pleasure be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman in an Adjournment debate, and he is absolutely right. I will come on to some examples of how long-term tethering has been detrimental and caused death to animals in a number of cases. The nature of tethering means that it does not require large amounts of land, so horses can end up tethered in inner-city locations. A pony in south Bristol spent years tied to a tree on a grass verge and was harassed by local children and frequently escaped on to roads. The reality is that that was not a one-off.

Bob Stewart: Do the majority of such incidents involve horses or ponies owned by Travellers who are just moving through?

Luke Hall: That can often be the case. If we are looking to change the legislation, we must ensure that we stamp out tethering and animal welfare abuses regardless of who owns the animal, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that point.
As I said, such incidents are a regular occurrence. In 2016, a pony was found tethered among fly-tipped rubbish. It was so badly tangled up in a discarded bicycle that it could not even stand. This pony, which had a life-threatening injury, was lost to the authorities after the owner simply moved it and tethered it in another location before they could arrive. Sadly, just before Christmas last year, a member of the public came across a pony that had been tethered in a wooded area. The tether had become tangled around the surrounding trees and, in a desperate effort to break free, the one-year-old pony had strangled himself and lay dead in the mud at the end of his tether. It is therefore clear that the practice desperately requires stricter regulation.
HorseWorld, the charity that started the campaign, was spurred into action by the alarming case of a mare that gave birth to her foal while she was tethered. Unable to protect her foal from the other horses who roamed free in the same field, the mare became seriously distressed. Of course, protection of the young is one of our most basic instincts. Research into tethered horses in Wales, where tethering is rife, showed that 10% of tethered horses had young foals. Those are just a few examples of the horrors associated with long-term tethering, but because tethering is not restricted by law, people can tether horses unchecked beyond the reach of the law, resulting in tethered horses reaching despicable stages of neglect before they can be rescued.
I want to touch on the current regulations and legislation surrounding equine welfare and explain why they are not protecting tethered horses in practice. The Minister may refer to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs code of practice, which acts as a guide to safely tethering horses, but the code is not being adhered to in reality, as demonstrated by an investigation conducted in south Wales in 2014 by the excellent University of Bristol’s veterinary school, which gave five main conclusions.
First, the code of practice states that water should be made available on a regular basis in a spill-proof container, but the research concluded that up to 90% of animals were not given water regularly. Secondly, the code states that animals should, as a minimum, have shelter from the sun and wind and that the area should be well drained in the event of heavy rain, but the research tells us that no shelter was provided in over 80% of cases.  Thirdly, animals should be given the freedom to exercise off the tether for a reasonable period at least once a day. In reality, however, less than 3% of horses spent more than five minutes a day off the tether, and no one would argue that five minutes is a reasonable amount of time. Fourthly, according to the code of practice, the tethering site should not contain anything that might injure the animal, but the reality is that sites contained potential hazards in 50% of cases. Fifthly, the code states that tethered horses require a high level of supervision, with inspections
“no less frequently than every 6 hours”.
However, it was found that only a third of horses were visited that regularly. While we have a code of practice, it is clearly not being adhered to, and the fact that an individual can move an animal before they ever reach the stage of being prosecuted renders the code of practice redundant.

Bob Stewart: If a horse is tethered and left, the area around the tether will soon have no grass and will become muddy if it is wet, hugely damaging the horse. That is one of the other problems of tethering.

Luke Hall: My hon. Friend is right about damage to the environment, and I urge colleagues to look at some of the photos of horses that have been treated so badly. I mentioned the pony in south Bristol that was tied to a tree, and the surrounding area was a small stretch of grass between a pavement and the road. Yes, there was huge damage to the local environment, but there was damage to the pony, too.
The code of practice informs us that tethering is not a suitable long-term method of managing horses, as does the RSPCA, the British Horse Society, World Horse Welfare and Redwings, but absolutely nothing can be done legally to prevent someone from tethering a horse for its whole life.
Further, long-term tethering directly infringes the five freedoms set out by the Animal Welfare Act 2006: the need for a suitable environment; the need for a suitable diet; the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; the need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
A tethered horse is not free to express natural behaviours. A horse that is free to roam will, on average, walk or run 10.6 miles a day, and the reality is that a tethered horse can come nowhere near that. As my many colleagues who keep horses can attest to, horses are flight animals. A horse’s most basic instinct is to flee from danger, which tethering does not allow. Tethering restricts a horse’s most natural behaviour.

Liz Twist: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. A large number of my constituents who have seen horses tethered locally have contacted me to express their concern about these issues.

Luke Hall: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We are seeing horses being tethered all across the country, potentially leaving them open to neglect, cruelty and abuse, and potentially posing a danger to the people around them, too.
Tethering is not deemed enough of a breach of the Animal Welfare Act to allow horse charities to intervene. A tethered horse also does not have the freedom to interact with its own species, as the Act says it should. Leaving horses isolated has been shown to increase stress levels and stress-related hormones, which can cause them to display stereotypical behaviours that cause physical and psychological harm.
Stereotypical behaviours are strongly linked to isolated horses; stabled horses tend to perform behaviours that engage with the stable around them, such as crib biting or weaving. Horses that are tethered long term have a total lack of environmental stimuli, so they are much more likely to develop stereotypical behaviours such as pacing or self-mutilation. This clearly raises questions about the clarity of the existing legislation and regulations on the grounds for removing a horse from a tether and on the capacity of law enforcers to act.
Long-term tethering is in direct conflict with legislation, yet in many instances authorities have not felt that the Animal Welfare Act is strong enough grounds to rescue horses, despite the obvious suffering. It is therefore my belief, and the belief of the charity that initiated this campaign, that the Act needs to be amended to state explicitly what constitutes inappropriate tethering.
One of the reasons why this is such an emotive subject is the location of tethered horses. As I said earlier, the main purpose of long-term tethering is free grazing, so horses end up on any strip of grass available, with the roadside, grass verges and even the middle of roundabouts, as we have seen in south Gloucestershire, being popular choices. It goes without saying that this is not remotely appropriate. Horses are easily spooked by traffic, and if the tether were to fail, there would be a loose horse on the road.
Advances in equine and animal science mean that we are much more able to understand what constitutes poor welfare, but our laws have not caught up with that deeper understanding. When I met HorseWorld staff, who are so passionate about what they do, I was told about a pregnant mare that escaped her tether and got on to a busy A road, where she narrowly avoided being hit by a lorry. Police had to attend the scene to monitor the horse until HorseWorld could assemble a team at 3 am. If the tethering laws were stricter, the lives of the mare and her unborn foal would not have been risked, a lorry driver would not have had to make an emergency stop on a main road and numerous hours of police time would not have been wasted.
That leads me on to my second point, which has been raised by other equine welfare charities in a number of reports: only appointed animal welfare officers or police constables have the authority to seize an animal. However, councils are in no way mandated to employ an animal welfare officer, so many choose not to do so. Our understanding is that as many as 40% of councils do not employ an animal welfare officer. In these areas, the police are the only organisation that has the power to rescue an animal from a situation where its welfare is compromised. I therefore ask the Minister to update us on what steps he is taking to gain a deeper understanding of the depth of the problem. The result of this situation is that police time is being spent attending horse rescues, which often just involve hours spent holding a horse at the side of the road when it had got on to the road. Only a police constable, once contacted, can authorise a  charity to remove a horse. It is clear from written parliamentary questions I have tabled that the Government have no idea about the amount of police time that is spent dealing with these incidents. Clearly, police time can be better spent in the community. Having clarity over who should be dealing with equine welfare complaints will reduce the time that it takes to deal with them and will save the lives of animals. The councils that do employ animal welfare officers need to ensure that they are trained to handle horses. That could easily be achieved by collaborating with voluntary organisations.
Let me now address what needs to change. In the past, DEFRA Ministers have said that the current legislation appropriately meets the needs of tethered horses. The 19,000 people who signed a petition to get the tethered horses rescued from Rovers Way in Cardiff would disagree. The 12,000 people who have emailed their MPs about getting tethering laws tightened would disagree. I also think that all the experts who have been in touch with me and the voluntary organisations calling for stricter laws on tethering would also disagree.
There are therefore four changes that I would like to see incorporated into the 2006 Act to improve the lives of horses. The first is that there should be a 24-hour legal limit on how long horses can be tethered for. That is important, because DEFRA’s code of practice states that long-term tethering is inappropriate. That needs to be clarified, backed up and given status in law. The second is that there needs to be a complete ban on tethering horses on the roadside or in dangerous locations. The third is that if a tether is someone’s only method of keeping an animal, they should not be allowed to keep that animal. The fourth is to make it a mandatory duty for local councils to employ an animal welfare officer or to ensure that arrangements are in place with neighbouring authorities to ensure that those officers are in place.
There is currently too much room for interpretation within the legislation. It needs to be clear-cut that long-term tethering infringes on equine welfare, leaving horses at risk of harm and suffering. We need to give the relevant authorities the means and confidence to rescue horses that desperately need protection. We need to step up and take action to protect these most majestic and iconic animals. Making these changes will protect thousands of horses across our country. Minister, please help us and break the chain.

David Rutley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on securing this debate, and I pay tribute to his campaigning activity in this House, on this issue and on many others, and to the hard work he does in the House.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the issues relating to horse tethering. I know it is an issue of concern to many, not only because of the important welfare issues involved, but because of the visibility of tethered horses in our countryside and by our roads and the many challenges that can arise if tethering is not undertaken properly and in line with established guidance and good practice.
As the Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, I am clear that we have to uphold, and continue to drive up, our already high standards of welfare in this country,  including in relation to the tethering of animals, and I applaud my hon. Friend for securing this debate and highlighting the issues that can arise. As he has so clearly set out, some people are not tethering their horses appropriately and are causing these poor animals distress and suffering. I was horrified to hear of the cases he set out of the suffering that poor tethering practice can cause our much loved horses and other equines. The practices in the examples he gave must be stamped out so that these noble animals can live without the threat of cruelty or a life of misery. I applaud the work that HorseWorld is doing to look after these horses, and I welcome the aims of its effective Break the Chain campaign which focuses on ending all inappropriate and long-term tethering of horses, and in particular on seeing a ban on the tethering of equines for longer than 24 hours.
As my hon. Friend clearly pointed out, it is an offence under section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to fail to provide for an animal’s welfare. As he mentioned, that means that a person who cares for an animal—whether it is a pet, a working animal or a farm animal—must provide for its five welfare needs, as set out in the Act. Those needs are a suitable environment to live in; a healthy diet, including fresh, clean water; the ability to exhibit normal behaviours; appropriate company —for example, some animals need to live in social groups; and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease. Section 4 of the Act goes even further and makes it an offence to cause a protected animal any unnecessary suffering—commonly known as animal cruelty.

Bob Stewart: The Minister mentioned the requirement for horses to live among their own kind. We can vividly understand how difficult it must be for a lone horse. Were a man or woman put in a herd of horses on our own for 24 hours, we would understand how lonely that can be. It is lonely for a horse, too.

David Rutley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The aim of the Government’s work in this policy area is to highlight that tethering should be for the short term. We want these animals to be as socialised as possible.
The 2006 Act is backed up by a number of statutory codes of practice, including the code for the welfare of horses, ponies, donkeys and their hybrids. The code provides owners and keepers with information on how to meet their animals’ welfare needs and includes a specific section on how to tether horses and other animals covered by the code. Although it is not a specific offence to breach a provision of the code, if proceedings are brought against someone, the court will look at whether they complied with the statutory code in deciding whether they have committed an offence. That makes the code a key document in relation to prosecutions for animal welfare offences. We are very grateful for the input and assistance from the British Horse Council and the Horse Trust in particular and for their advice last year on the changes we made to the code, which was updated in April 2018.
I should clarify that tethering is not a banned activity, as there are circumstances in which tethering may avoid a greater risk of harm arising—for example, if a horse strayed into a place of danger. That point was made by World Horse Welfare in the statement issued this week, which said:
“We are concerned that banning tethering could lead to more horses kept indoors where their welfare cannot be monitored, or left to wander freely, endangering both themselves and the general public.”
Tethering is defined under the code as
“securing an animal by an appropriately attached chain, to a centre point or anchorage, causing it to be confined to a desired area.”
Furthermore, the code states that tethering
“is not a suitable method of long-term management of an animal,”
but
“may be useful as an exceptional short-term method of animal management”.
I think that goes a long way towards addressing the first and third changes that my hon. Friend proposed.
Although tethering is not prevented or illegal under the code, the code does include detailed specific advice on tethering and how it should be done properly. It details which animals are not suitable for tethering and provides advice on a suitable and appropriate site—for example, a site should not allow the horse access to a public highway or public footpaths. That helps to address the second change proposed by my hon. Friend. To tether a horse in such a way that it can physically be on a pavement or road is clearly contrary to the code and therefore open to enforcement action.
In addition to the statutory welfare code, other organisations provide advice on tethering. For example, World Horse Welfare has drawn attention to the code of practice produced by the National Equine Welfare Council specifically on tethering. In addition, the British Horse Society has produced a helpful leaflet that is available online and provides advice to anyone with concerns. The Redwings equine welfare charity also has useful advice on tethering, as does the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has also produced guidance on tethering. Our concern today, though, is not with necessary tethering that is undertaken in the short term, in the right way and in exceptional circumstances, to avoid a greater risk of harm arising; it is with avoidable and unacceptable tethering.
Under the 2006 Act, local authorities have powers to investigate concerns about the welfare of animals and if necessary to seize them—if they are suffering, for example. They can also prosecute if someone is neglecting an animal in their care. In addition, the way the Act is drafted means that anyone can bring forward a prosecution under the Act, and it is on this basis that the RSPCA prosecutes many hundreds of people each year for animal cruelty or neglect. It is important that we all recognise the important work the RSPCA does in this area.
Those convicted of such crimes under the Act can be subject to an unlimited fine or imprisonment for up to six months. I am pleased to say that the Government have announced that they are increasing the maximum custodial penalty for animal cruelty from six months to five years of imprisonment. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be very aware that the five-year penalty is already in place in Northern Ireland and we look forward to having it in England, too.
If anyone is concerned about how a horse or other animal has been tethered, they should report the matter either to the relevant local authority or to the RSPCA, which can investigate and if necessary take the matter further. If a horse or other animal is found not to be tethered appropriately, that could lead to a prosecution under the 2006 Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate mentioned the important role of local authorities in this area and the need for them to appoint animal welfare officers. Local authorities have strong powers to enforce welfare controls and often work in partnership with the RSPCA or other welfare charities, or indeed with other local authorities that have expertise in horse management.
Enforcement can be targeted according to local priorities and needs. In some areas, for example, horse abandonment or poor tethering practice might be an issue. In others, it may be non-existent. We encourage all interested parties to work together at local level to use the available powers to address the problem of abandoned or incorrectly tethered horses. Local authorities have powers under the 2006 Act to appoint welfare inspectors, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and I encourage them to do so to meet the needs of residents and equines in their area.

Bob Stewart: The Minister refers to reporting to local authorities. A weekend is a long time, and local authorities close down. I should have thought that reporting it to the police might result in more action.

David Rutley: Local authorities often have emergency contact numbers, and the RSPCA can give a 24/7—or at least seven day a week—response. I think my hon. Friend’s concerns are addressed.
I am conscious that, in the short time I have left to speak, it is also important to highlight that the Control of Horses Act 2015 is also relevant. It was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) with support from the Government and introduced more flexible options for the management of unlawfully placed or abandoned horses—often known as fly-grazing horses—some of which might be tethered. It has been welcomed by landowners, local authorities, countryside bodies and animal welfare charities.
In summary, the appropriate tethering of horses is an important issue that the Government are taking action to address. We have put a number of protections in the 2006 Act, the code for the welfare of horses and the 2015 Act. The strong arguments made today and the concerns that have been raised mean that I shall call for a meeting with key stakeholders in the months ahead to see what more can be done in sharing and documenting best practice on horse tethering and ensuring that messages on best practice are more actively disseminated to horse owners. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate on these matters in the months ahead and I am sure that that will help us to deliver animal welfare at a continued high standard now and in the years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.